Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rebased fixes for 1.4.x codeline #2

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

lindner
Copy link
Contributor

@lindner lindner commented Oct 6, 2010

Hi, Finally got around to rebasing my 1.4.x branch

Note that this compiles under gcc 4.4 without problems and without the patch that was submitted for that fix.

Would appreciate it if you could take a second look at these patches.

@dustin
Copy link
Member

dustin commented Oct 6, 2010

This feels like a lot of changes for a maintenance branch. I don't know think we can easily merge these changes up to the development branch. As most of this is performance, it seems like it's happening in the wrong place.

@lindner
Copy link
Contributor Author

lindner commented Oct 6, 2010

Dustin -- how long have we been waiting for the next branch? These changes are fine and shouldn't affect what you're doing in your fork, plus they happen to fix an issue.

Once you guys get serious about getting an alpha and a roadmap out the door is when I'll get serious about working off your engine branch.

@trondn
Copy link
Member

trondn commented Oct 6, 2010

I'd rather see the 116 issue being replaced with a proper description about the current threading than just nuking away the document. The threading logic is the same in memcached, the problem is just that you can't disable it anymore... Apart from that all I can see from the change history is unlikely/likely changes.. what is the performance improvement in % for these intrusive changes?

@trondn
Copy link
Member

trondn commented Oct 15, 2010

Any updates on this?

@lindner
Copy link
Contributor Author

lindner commented Oct 15, 2010

Haven't had time to address your comments yet. Maybe this weekend. Been a bit consumed with the new job and tending to shindig lately...

@zwChan zwChan mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2014
@dormando
Copy link
Member

Never closed this since I'm curious if the likely/unlikely stuff actually makes a difference in performance tests...

Four years is pretty bitrotted though. Sorry. guess I'll leave it open a bit longer before giving up?

@dormando
Copy link
Member

I pulled the gitignore change.. thought I had already. In the middle of refactoring a bunch of stuff which we can then re-profile and add likely/unlikely behind new macros.

Updates to the connection code will happen soon after some code cleanup... will give a chance to reorder the structures, but more importantly idle connections won't hold onto buffers anymore. saves a lot more memory.

closing this out.

@dormando dormando closed this Jun 27, 2016
@jim-yefeng jim-yefeng mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2016
dormando referenced this pull request in dormando/memcached Dec 5, 2017
using the new per-class free chunk limiter and ignoring item age, we can now
create a highly responsive page mover algorithm. It makes much fewer page
moves than before and keeps more of the free memory target in each class.

adjusts the per-class limits once per minute, and otherwise balancers by age.
dormando added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2018
issue #338 reported a memory leak in the init code. another non-issue, since
it's a handful of bytes and that code path is only used in a couple of tests.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants