Brian Pane wrote:
Thanks for catching that. In this particular design, I think
we'll be safe because only the current listener thread is ever
allowed to pop from the stack.
yeah, that occurred to me driving home yesterday. If we can guarantee there is
only one popper at a time, that
Greg Ames wrote:
Brian Pane wrote:
Thanks for catching that. In this particular design, I think
we'll be safe because only the current listener thread is ever
allowed to pop from the stack.
yeah, that occurred to me driving home yesterday. If we can guarantee there is
only one popper
Greg Ames wrote:
Brian Pane wrote:
Relative to the current worker MPM design, the potential
advantages of this new design are:
* Better cache utilization, because the stack makes it
more likely that a recently active thread will serve
the next request
* An implementation that uses
Now that APR is beginning to support atomic
compare-and-set (CAS) operations, I decided to
revisit an old idea: use a leader/follower design
to improve upon the efficiency of the worker MPM.
The following writeup describes my current design
idea. It's somewhat radical, particularly in the
parts
