On Thursday 04 September 2014 01:07:49, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 03.09.2014 23:15, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 15:37:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It's now ~6 years later and so wondering if just bypassing
the pool freelist is now viable, at least as a compile-time
/ malloc/free (Paul was the main dude in this case)
and we got terrible performance...
It's now ~6 years later and so wondering if just bypassing
the pool freelist is now viable, at least as a compile-time
(or allocator) option.
On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Ivan Zhakov chemo...@gmail.com wrote
On 3 September 2014 23:37, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Yeah, that thread, and Greg's work w/ pocore, are kind of
the origins of this question. The thing is that awhile ago,
(I mean way awhile ago), I recall us trying to simply replace
pools w/ malloc/free (Paul was the main dude in
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:03 AM, Ivan Zhakov i...@visualsvn.com wrote:
On 3 September 2014 23:37, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Yeah, that thread, and Greg's work w/ pocore, are kind of
the origins of this question. The thing is that awhile ago,
(I mean way awhile ago), I recall us trying
On 2 September 2014 16:02, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Has anyone looked at simply disabling the apr_pools freelist
totally lately and seeing what the performance is?
This thread may be interesting:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0070.shtml
We also tested disabling apr_pools
and so wondering if just bypassing
the pool freelist is now viable, at least as a compile-time
(or allocator) option.
On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Ivan Zhakov chemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 September 2014 16:02, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Has anyone looked at simply disabling
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 15:37:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It's now ~6 years later and so wondering if just bypassing
the pool freelist is now viable, at least as a compile-time
(or allocator) option.
I don't see any reason against a non-default compile-time option. Then
people could test
On 03.09.2014 23:15, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 15:37:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It's now ~6 years later and so wondering if just bypassing
the pool freelist is now viable, at least as a compile-time
(or allocator) option.
I don't see any reason against a non-default
Has anyone looked at simply disabling the apr_pools freelist
totally lately and seeing what the performance is?
