From: Tavis R. <ta...@re...> - 2002-08-10 18:28:46
|
On August 10, 2002 05:32 am, Geoff Talvola wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 19:10, Tavis Rudd wrote: > > That sounds right, but why tie the cache size to the number of thread= s.=20 > > If someone runs WebKit with large number of threads, say a hundred, i= t's > > possible for this scheme to consume lots of memory during a flood.=20 > > Wouldn't be better to either a) maintain a count of the instances and= go > > into a wait loop if a request comes in while the cache is empty but > > enough instances have been created, or b) put a cap on the size of th= e > > cache that is obeyed when returning instances to it? > > Why would you run WebKit with that many threads? Trying to process 100 > requests in parallel seems certain to lead to worse performance than > limiting the number of threads to something reasonable (say, 10 or 20). > > And what's the point of _having_ 100 threads if only, say, 20 of them > can actually be processing a servlet while the other 80 threads are > blocking, waiting for a servlet instance? In that case, you'd be much > better off only having 20 threads. That's assuming that all threads are trying to access the same servlet, w= hich=20 is probably a fair assumption during a flood. > So to me, if makes sense that the # of threads =3D=3D the maximum # of > servlets in a servlet cache. Ok, I agree. The code's also simpler this way, which is a good thing. Tavis |