Hi Anatol, Thank you for update. I'm surprised you don't see speed difference even with ZTS :(
I didn't get what you propose to change in virtual_file_ex(). I'll do a more careful patch review later on this week. Thaks. Dmitry. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Anatol Belski <a...@php.net> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Wed, October 23, 2013 14:55, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > Hi Anatol, > > > > > > First of all PHP is mainly used as NTS on Linux (LAMP stack) > > It's the reason I tested it first, to check if your patch affects the > > performance that is really important for users. > > > > I still think that tsrm_do_alloca() have to be replaced by do_alloca(). > > They have exactly the same logic, except that the first one fallback to > > malloc() and the second one to emalloc(). It must not be affected by > > malloc()s and realloc()s if you changed them into emalloc() and > > erealloc(). May be I missing something... > > > > > > I'm not sure about alloca() usage on Windows, but you may change zend.h > > if you like. BTW: I don't think we should replace alloca() by _malloca(), > > because do_alloca() already does the same in portable way and uses > > per-request heap. > > > > last week I've updated the patch according to your recommendations, now we > have the performance test results > > > http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20131025-MasterVanilla-Master50333-3820.html > > http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20131025-MasterVanilla-Master50333-7795.html > > Also enabled the stack usage in both TS/NTS for windows. It shows still no > improvement as one can see. Though, there are some functions, like > virtual_file_ex(), which use emalloc() only in the patch, but called very > often within the virtual cwd API. Changing them would require signature > changes os one can efree() in case of the fallback situation, but still > it's doubtful that would tell some bigger difference in performance. Do > you think it's worth a try? > > Regards > > Anatol > >
