On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 09:13:46PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> buhhh?
>
> you guys built a zero-copy infrastructure and you're putting in a one-copy
> sprintf?
sprintf varieties must be at least one-copy, based on our vformatter code
(which BUFF used, too). It seems you're implying sprintf should be zero-copy
also. ??
> i don't get it. this new ap_rsprintf is less efficient than the
> ap_bsprintf in apache-1.3.
I don't doubt it. The primary intent for ap_r* was compatibility; the most
optimal mechanism for delivering content is through the new brigade
mechanisms (down thru the filter chain).
> also, wow, ap_rputc really sucks now. that's a lot of code (in
> buffer_output) compared to:
>
> *buf++ = c;
>
> guess all your abstraction has hidden the real buffer and you can't do any
> useful optimisations?
At this point, we are not trying to optimize "around" the filter chain.
Since we can't know what is next in the chain, buffer_output we must use
ap_fwrite() to buffer the data.
In the future? Yah. Maybe we'll be able to do more, but that won't happen
for a while.
>...
> oh ouch i gotta stop looking:
>
> /* this will typically exit on the first test */
> for (f = r->output_filters; f != NULL; f = f->next)
> if (strcasecmp("OLD_WRITE", f->frec->name) == 0)
> break;
>
> i'm puking. strcasecmp???? strings??
Yah :-) It could be optimized by recording a flag in the request_rec,
stating that the filter was inserted (rather than looking for it). The
strcasecmp() shouldn't be necessary because we uppercase f->frec->name
nowadays.
Not that it will improve things overall, but there ya go. :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
