Re: pools and buckets/brigades, WAS: RE: Review of possible replacement for pools

[Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>]

On Saturday 25 August 2001 11:38, Sander Striker wrote:
> > > Btw, why couldn't we use pools in brigades again?
> >
> > Because of lifetimes.  If you allocate buckets and brigades out of pools,
> > the lifetimes can't change, but bucket lifetimes aren't known at creation
> > time.  And, you can't use the longest possible lifetime, because that
> > would be a leak.
>
> Ah, I suppose associating a pool with a brigade wouldn't work, would it?
> The buckets can move from brigade to brigade?

There is alreadya pool associated with a brigade.  That doesn't get you
anything though.  A bucket needs to be able to move from one brigade
to another.

I have a problem with the original question though.  I don't understand why
anybody is trying to state that if people want to improve the pools code, they
shouldn't, because we use malloc in one place in the code.  People are
free to work on whatever they want.  If somebody wants to remove the malloc
calls from the buckets and bucket brigades, then they can, but that doesn't
mean that everybody has to focus on that.

Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Re: pools and buckets/brigades, WAS: RE: Review of possible replacement for pools

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 1:40 PM


> > I have a problem with the original question though.  I don't understand why
> > anybody is trying to state that if people want to improve the pools code, they
> > shouldn't, because we use malloc in one place in the code.  People are
> > free to work on whatever they want.
> 
> I am not being philosophical. Sure, people can spend their time doing whatever they want.
> I assume open source developers like to see others benefit from their labor. If the goal
> is to improve the performance of the http server, (remember this was posted to dev@httpd
> and that is why I reference the http server), they are wasting their time trying to
> improve the pool code. There are clearly more serious memory allocation problems to solve
> first.

Then scratch that itch, Bill, instead of moaning about it.

> Gotta run. Party on...

My point exactly ;)

Re: pools and buckets/brigades, WAS: RE: Review of possible replacement for pools

[Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>]

>
> I have a problem with the original question though.  I don't understand why
> anybody is trying to state that if people want to improve the pools code, they
> shouldn't, because we use malloc in one place in the code.  People are
> free to work on whatever they want.

I am not being philosophical. Sure, people can spend their time doing whatever they want.
I assume open source developers like to see others benefit from their labor. If the goal
is to improve the performance of the http server, (remember this was posted to dev@httpd
and that is why I reference the http server), they are wasting their time trying to
improve the pool code. There are clearly more serious memory allocation problems to solve
first.

Gotta run. Party on...

Bill