Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 30, 4:30 pm, "Donal K. Fellows"
<donal.k.fell...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
Well, it was my understanding that this private part was just a cache
of bounded size, and that beyond this threshold everything was in
anonymous malloc()s...
That's possibly true. I'd need to read the source to be sure. But in any
case, it's still pretty easy to do thread-level accounting of memory;
there's always a current thread available when you're doing a malloc().
OK. The question then, is would we put this accounting inside or
outside an #ifdef TCL_SOME_DEBUG, because of the possible perf hit to
the vast majority (1-1e-5 is an underestimate) of scripts uninterested
in it ;-)
-Alex
.
- References:
- Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: graeme.pietersz@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: Gerald W. Lester
- Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: graeme.pietersz@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux
- Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: Donal K. Fellows
- Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux
- Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- From: Donal K. Fellows
- Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- Prev by Date: Re: Handling output from ldapsearch
- Next by Date: Re: Handling output from ldapsearch
- Previous by thread: Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- Next by thread: Re: Limiting resources used by scripts on web server
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|