<Forwarding from [EMAIL PROTECTED]> This is about the apr_poll implementation. The new implementation seems to have an impact on performance.
Ryan ---------------------------------------------- Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 645 Howard St. [EMAIL PROTECTED] San Francisco, CA > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 1:55 PM > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: RE: Apache 2 instruction count profile (head as of ~15:00 EDT > July 10) > > > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > This is with Ryan's poll patch and some of my patches to mod_cache and > > mod_mem_cache (which I will publish later on). Unfortuanetely the > results > > are difficult to compare with earlier results because my test tree was > > just > > too polluted with patches for Ryan's patch to cleanly apply. Still, > the > > overall direction is good (7.5% reduction in instruction count). The > > difference between Jeff's wait_for_timeout and Ryan's is noise in this > > comparison. However, I suspect the apr_poll() is better in general and > is > > contributing to the improvement. > > Based on these numbers, I would like to commit the new apr_poll() today. > This is likely to break everything but Unix for a few days however. > Once the code is committed, there are some obvious performance > improvements that can still be made. The first, is to use a static > array for small poll sets, or use alloca on systems that have it. The > second is to go through Apache and remove the functions that used to > setup poll sets. That will actually have an impact on all of the Unix > MPMs, because we will finally be able to stop re-inserting the same > socket into the pollset for every request. > > Does anybody have a problem with this plan? I would like to commit late > this evening, which will give me enough time to fix Windows tonight > (hopefully). > > Ryan >