Re: Patch for opcode caches

Marcus Boerger wrote:

Hello Stanislav, Friday, March 14, 2008, 5:51:49 PM, you wrote:

But that means we are compiling inheritance when a file is loaded form the cache. The goal should be to compiling inheritance when writing to the opcode cache file. All we achieve here is a slow down. If there is

You can not do that. You do not know that until runtime.

something that makes this required than at least we need to warn the user about the slow code. I Think what we need to do is deprecating class and

It won't be slow. It would be much faster (in some cases 10x faster). This specific assembly of instructions might be slower in some cases, but the code altogether will be faster. That's the idea of the opcode caches.

namespace use in non main blocks as well as include and require in non main blocks. And if there is no such case than everything can be bound early which is the fast state we should aim for.

Lemme just think, doing inheritance at compile time before we send the stuff to an opcode cache can be slower then? How is that possible? After all late binding means we do it at run time. And no matter how much faster we can do it. It will always be slower than doing the same thing only once.

We do not need to deprecate anything, and inheritance can not be bound before parent class is known, which in the case of bytecode cache means - not before the file is loaded from the cache. That's exactly what this patch enables. It does not change performance characteristics of neither cached not non-cached code, it just makes it much simpler and working in all cases.

Inheritance cannot be done before the parent class is known. We still need to do the prototype checks even if we assume the class is there and insert a virtual class as parent somehow.

I don't actually see early binding as being much of a problem, the real problem is when the same class is both early and late bound. If you consistently always bind early or always bind late, opcode caches should be quite happy to let you do that. But if you mix the two, things get chaotic and the problem becomes intractable. We went through all this in APC a couple of years ago. My initial, somewhat naiive attempt at fixing it: http://news.php.net/php.pecl.cvs/4288 That obviously wasn't enough to fix it, so essentially we end up simply detecting the scenario and not doing early binding for classes that are detected to also be bound late: http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=5314 -Rasmus