[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: fsfs-improvements branch complete

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:50:44 -0700

  This makes it far too easy to pass that single pool as both result and
scratch pool, which in general doesn't result in proper memory usage. (once
a function has a scratch pool argument it assumes its caller ensures it is
short lived and removes its own subpools for decent chunks of temp memory,
which then ends up as long lived.

We should slowly move to dual pools for every function with long lived
output arguments.

From: Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
Sent: 12/08/2013 00:39
To: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Cc: Subversion Development <dev_at_subversion.apache.org>
Subject: Re: fsfs-improvements branch complete

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Philip Martin

> Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> writes:
> > After two weeks now, I finally completed the fsfs format 6 refactoring
> > and improvement work on said branch. Please review. See also
> > http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-07/0385.shtml for the "split up
> > fs_fs.c" part of it.
> >
> > If there are no objections, I will merge the code in the week of Aug
> 26th.
> I'm wondering whether this:
> +/** Take the #svn_fs_dirent_t structures in @a entries as returned by
> + * #svn_fs_dir_entries for @a root and determine an optimized ordering
> + * in which data access would most likely be efficient. Set @a *ordered_p
> + * to a newly allocated APR array of pointers to these #svn_fs_dirent_t
> + * structures. Allocate the array (but not its contents) in @a pool.
> + *
> + * @since New in 1.9.
> + */
> +svn_error_t *
> +svn_fs_dir_optimal_order(apr_array_header_t **ordered_p,
> + svn_fs_root_t *root,
> + apr_hash_t *entries,
> + apr_pool_t *pool);
> should have two pools? I can see that in lots of cases the optimal
> ordering is something the backend produces with little effort, that's
> the case for the current implementations, and so a scratch pool is not
> necessary. Lots of FS functions are single pool because they were
> defined before we started using two pools. What should new functions
> do?

Yes, we could use 2 pools for new functions and
I feel more or less indifferent about it. However, I
would suggest the following guideline to maximize

* keep all vtable entries in SVN_FS singly pooled,
  including new ones
* make all functions in SVN_FS2 follow the new
  two-pool pattern

-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2013-08-12 00:51:36 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.