On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 11:45:01AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > Sander Striker wrote: > > >Cliff pointed out to me that using my homedir for this stuff might be > >a better idea (instead of people pounding my ADSL). > > > >I saw some hits on my box and think that people were scared away by > >the size of the archive (~10MB). Sorry about that. In combination with > >the speed of my line I can imagine you didn't even try ;) > > > >Ok, now it can be found on www.apache.org/~striker/sms > > > >Sander > > > Thanks. If I'm reading the graphs right, they show > that destruction of a leaf SMS with siblings is much > more common than destruction or reset of a non-leaf > SMS with children. That seems to reinforce the > conclusion I drew from gprof data: we could get better > performance by allocating blocks for a child from > something that isn't the direct parent (like a per-CPU > free list, based on Dean's recommendation).
okay. could someone explain to me why there are two stacks of apr_sms_trivial, such that you get the double list-walk in the first place? please? :) is there a good reason why apr_sms_trivial is not using apr_sms_general to obtain its memory? surely, to get blocks for a child directly from malloc [via apr_sms_general] would be better than going to another apr_sms_trivial, which, as the stats show, does yet another list-walk? also, would someone like to write an apr_sms_trivial_using_hashchains? the idea here would be that the size of the memory block is used as a hash-lookup into the currently-available free chain, instead of list-walking. surely, that saves time, yes? anyone care to refute this hypothesis and proposal? all best, luke
