Re: [APC-DEV] Re: cvs: pecl /apc apc_main.c

Brian Shire wrote:

Changing cache entry mtime when stat=0 to match the last known file

mtime.    # Yell at me if this breaks anyone's expected functionality, or if there's a cleaner way to do this.

Doesn't this completely make apc.stat = 0 completely pointless by ...

I re-tested this just now by placing a warning message in this block of code, and I only see it happening on the initial cache insertion, subsequent requests are silent.

My bad. I read the code once, ran it and saw stat() in my strace.

Sounds fine by me, anyone who is running php4 and apc is kindof defeating the point due to the large speed/memory gains by running php5. (at least that's been my experience).

There are people still stuck on php4 land, but they need to move out soon. Whatever gives them enough of a carrot ... :)

I recall reading this a while ago as I stuck your blog on my rss feed, I think it's a great idea. My only concern immediately is how it will affect my outstanding patch for doing binary dumps to files, as I rely on these copy* functions to pull the data from the cache.

The copy* functions are going to be split into copy_in* and copy_out* and most probably all you need will be in copy_in*.

if there's other ways to go about this. It just may create more dependencies that we'll have to deal with. Happy to help fixup that part of the code while you make changes too though or perhaps sit on it for a while?

I've sort of been slightly concerned about putting up something like that into APC HEAD (people distributing binary php files). I wouldn't mind a public patch to let me see how you do it, but pushing into mainline might be a *real* pain to maintain into the future.

I was also thinking today that maybe we should mark --enable-pthreadmutex as not "EXPERIMENTAL" any longer. I think I have one outstanding issue with linking to look at on this, but the code itself should be pretty stable (I've been running it for a while). I'm going to take a look at spin locks here soon too to see if I can reproduce the problems Rasmus/Ilia have reported.

Yup, it'd be good to go off fcntl land for locks.

Let me know what you think about this, and if it's still a problem. Perhaps there is another place we could be doing this too?

Cache insert could be a place to do this (outside the locked section), rather than doing it in apc_main.c. But as of now, I'd rather not worry too much about design in that codebase - so, leave the patch in. Cheers, Gopal -- I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept.

              --- Calvin