Hi,
one of my thought was the change from worker->s->name to ap_proxy_worker_name(r->pool, worker) in logging function. ap_proxy_worker_name allocates memory in the pool and performs some operations on strings (apr_pstrcat). These operations are performed in all cases, even if DEBUG messages are not logged. I don't think this should have a real effect on performance. (If I remember well when I looked at it, there is no ap_log_error calls in sensitive code) Just to be sure, you could try to simplify ap_proxy_worker_name in Daniel's build to remove the apr_pstrcat and check performance with his build. Should you and Daniel have different logging levels, it could explain why you don't measure the same discrepancy. Just my 2 cents. If I have time, I'll give another look tonight. CJ > Message du 02/12/13 13:46 > De : "Jim Jagielski" > A : dev@httpd.apache.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: UDS Patch > > OK, I can't by inspection or by test see any performance > differences between the 2 implementations (in fact, > the older one, in some benchmarks, was slower due to > the string operations in the critical path)... > > Any ideas? > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Thx... the key is httpd-2.4.6-uds-delta.patch and > > that shows nothing, that I can see, which would > > result in the "old" being faster than the "new"... > > especially in the critical section where we do > > the apr_sockaddr_info_get() stuff... > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > > >> I reapplied the patches in order to 2.4.6 before r1531340 was added to > >> the proposal. Attached are the three diff's of use: > >> httpd-2.4.6-uds-original.patch - Everything in the backport proposal up > >> to (but not including) r1531340 sans the stuff that doesn't fit > >> httpd-2.4.6-uds-new.patch - The 2.4 patch proposed with r1511313 applied > >> first. Note that this doesn't include r1543174 > >> httpd-2.4.6-uds-delta.patch - The delta between the two modified trees > >> > >> -- > >> Daniel Ruggeri > >> > >> On 11/22/2013 5:27 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > >>> Sorry, I thought the diffs I sent off list were good enough. I'll have > >>> to see if I even still have the original build lying around. > >>> Effectively, I just took the list of patches in the backport proposal > >>> and applied them one at a time to the 2.4.6 sources. If I can't find the > >>> build, I'll do the same over and send that instead. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daniel Ruggeri > >> > >> > > > >
