El lun, 03-11-2014 a las 00:22 -0800, Benjamin Poulain escribió: > On 11/2/14, 1:11 AM, Carlos Garcia Campos wrote: > > El sáb, 01-11-2014 a las 20:43 +0200, Antti Koivisto escribió: > >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Carlos Garcia Campos > >> <carlo...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> El vie, 31-10-2014 a las 19:02 +0200, Antti Koivisto escribió: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > > >> > I'm planning to add an experimental HTTP cache > >> implementation to > >> > WebKit (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30322). > >> > >> Great news! > >> > >> > The main motivations are: > >> > > >> > > >> > - Improving performance by bringing the cache closer. For > >> example we > >> > can serialize WebKit response objects directly instead of > >> converting > >> > to/from platform types. > >> > - Making future innovation around caching easier. Closer > >> coordination > >> > between cache and WebKit opens new optimization > >> possibilities. > >> > > >> > > >> > The cache lives in the network process. Most of the code is > >> > cross-platform. The storage backend uses libdispatch IO > >> though it > >> > wouldn't be hard to add a generic posix one too. > >> > >> Why is it limited to the network process? wouldn't it be > >> possible to use > >> it also in the web process when shared secondary process model > >> is used? > >> > >> > >> The cache ties to NetworkResourceLoader which lives in the network > >> process. In principle it would be possible to integrate with the web > >> process side resource loader too. However I don't want to support > >> multiple configurations during development. > >> > >> > >> It would be good if all WK2 ports would eventually switch to using the > >> network process. The current multitude of configurations makes > >> networking related code more confusing and less hackable than it needs > >> to be. > > The GTK+ port supports the network process, but it's only used when > > multiple secondary process model is used. Some applications prefer the > > single shared secondary process model, and even some of the browser > > users change the default process model of epiphany to single web process > > because it requires fewer resources. So, we could either integrate the > > cache with the web process loader, or use the network process > > unconditionally for all process models. I think for many simple > > applications a single web process is the most efficient model, though. > I believe it would be better to enable the network process for all > process models. Maintaining multiple configurations for marginal gains > is not sustainable, especially in the network stack. > > You say a single Web Process is the most efficient model for some > applications. What is the impact of always enabling the network process on: > -CPU load? > -Memory load? > -Overall performance?
I haven't measured, I was thinking mainly on the overhead of the IPC traffic required for the network resources. > Once we know where the problems are, we should work together at reducing > the impact. I suspect we can get the network process below 5% overhead. > > Benjamin > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev