Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:49:00 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: Dmitry Khrustalev <dima@bog.msu.su> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Serious performance issue with 2.2.5-RELEASE (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971123234226.22406W-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971123114156.22406G-100000@alive.znep.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
While the below change will result a better fit between Apache's memory pools and the system malloc(), I am somewhat skeptical that it will have any noticable impact on 99% of the systems and even more skeptical that it could have any real impact on the problems of this thread. For those that aren't familiar with Apache's memory pools, what the below change does is make Apache use 8k as the smallest size requested from malloc() instead of a silly 8k + ~12 bytes. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:19:31 +0300 (????) > From: Dmitry Khrustalev <dima@bog.msu.su> > To: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@cdsnet.net> > Cc: David Greenman <dg@root.com>, hackers@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Serious performance issue with 2.2.5-RELEASE > > > > On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, Jaye Mathisen wrote: > > > > > I do not believe so. What ever it is definitely appears related to > > swapping/paging somehow. > > I beleive the following patch to apache should improve situation: > > --- alloc.c.old Sun Nov 23 11:15:31 1997 > +++ alloc.c Sun Nov 23 11:16:34 1997 > @@ -199,7 +199,8 @@ > /* Nope. */ > > min_size += BLOCK_MINFREE; > - return malloc_block((min_size > BLOCK_MINALLOC) ? min_size : BLOCK_MINALLOC); > + return malloc_block((min_size > BLOCK_MINALLOC - sizeof(union block_hdr)) ? > + min_size : BLOCK_MINALLOC - sizeof(union block_hdr)); > }
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.971123234226.22406W-100000>