- From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:31:32 -0700
- To: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:10:16AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> > Haven't heard much. If we s/20k/4k/ in the header section, any other comments / suggestions / concerns? >> >> How about something like 4072 bytes instead of 4k? That would give >> the implementor some space for a length field and/or memory-management >> bookkeeping inside the same page as the buffer, on systems with 4KB >> pages. > > One specific value will never match all usages. For instance, I could > store those pages in trees which need more than 24 bytes on 64-bit > systems. The proposed value should be seen as a guideline to favor > interoperability and nothing more. I picked 24 bytes to allow for three pointers and/or counters on 64-bit systems, but I agree that a value larger than 24 would be a good idea. Given the prevalence of 64-byte cache lines, any number between 1 byte and 63 bytes might as well be rounded up to 64 bytes. > If an implementation makes use of > 4kB pages and need 64 bytes for page management, resulting in 4032 > bytes, it will still be fine because the application which would > complain about the missing 64 bytes will once in a while be hit by > implementations respecting the 4096 bytes too. Generally speaking, I'm not worried about wasted space within a page. In every nontrivial server and proxy implementation I've seen, buffers for received messages are allocated in relatively large units - multiples of 4KB or 8KB, for example. A request that fits within, say, 1KB will automatically lead to internal fragmentation. And that's fine; it's a totally valid design tradeoff. The resource I'm most interested in conserving isn't actually memory, it's TLB entries. With that in mind, what do you think about 4000 bytes? It's a nice round number, but it gives the implementor more flexibility than 4096. -Brian
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 16:32:19 UTC