On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:29:47AM -0700, dean gaudet wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Sander Striker wrote: > > > > > Why are we so desperate in opting out the child-pool creation? > > > I don't really have problems with a child pool for each thread. Actually, > > > it will make the dynamic locking a lot easier to implement if it stays. > > > > all threads MUST have their own private pool root. > > > > otherwise you're just throwing scalability away in locks. (which is > > proved by the claim i saw that ian got better performance by defining > > ALLOC_USE_MALLOC on an 8-way.) > > I totally agree, but only as a solution in httpd. no, everywhere. > I also believe that we should provide this [application-specific requirement] > outside of the basic thread support in APR. > > Please allow me to use pseudocode: > > void * worker_function(void * opaque_application_data) { > > apr_pool_t *thread_pool; > > create_child_pool(&thread_pool, global_root_pool); now you've got mutexes in global_root_pool. see my performance comment above. -dean