Sascha Schumann wrote:
> Or simply use eAccelerator which does not cause those open
> calls.
Which doesn't support PHP 5.1 very well.
> Rasmus, is that behaviour by design? I deinstalled APC
> because of this 'characteristic' last week. It was killing a
> high-traffic site.
Look at the code for require_once/include_once. It has nothing to do
with APC. The code is:
zend_file_handle file_handle;
if(SUCCESS == zend_stream_open(inc_filename->value.str.val,
&file_handle)) {
if(!file_handle.opened_path) {
file_handle.opened_path = estrndup(inc_filename->value.str.val,
inc_filename->value.str.len);
}
if(zend_hash_add(&EG(included_files),
file_handle.opened_path,
strlen(file_handle.opened_path)+1,
(void *)&dummy, sizeof(int), NULL)==SUCCESS) {
op_array = zend_compile_file(&file_handle, ZEND_INCLUDE);
zend_destroy_file_handle(&file_handle);
} else {
zend_file_handle_dtor(&file_handle);
failure_retval=1;
}
} else {
if(opline->op2.u.constant.value.lval==ZEND_INCLUDE_ONCE) {
zend_message_dispatcher(ZMSG_FAILED_INCLUDE_FOPEN,
inc_filename->value.str.val);
} else {
zend_message_dispatcher(ZMSG_FAILED_REQUIRE_FOPEN,
inc_filename->value.str.val);
}
}
In contrast, a straight include/require just does:
op_array = compile_filename(opline->op2.u.constant.value.lval,
inc_filename);
Nothing else. An opcode cache doesn't kick in until the compiler hook
is invoked either by zend_compile_filename or zend_compile_file.
Anything that happens before is outside of its control, and since there
is no hook here to override this require_once behaviour I really don't
see how an opcode cache can be avoiding this zend_stream_open() call.
The way the _once code is written makes a lot of sense for non-opcode
cached requests where it would be silly to do an initial stat to check
if the file has been included and then go back and open it. Doing it
all in one call makes sense assuming multiple includes is not the common
case and that an open isn't significantly more expensive than a stat.
However, for an opcode cache this is of course far from ideal and it is
an area I have on my TODO list for trying to figure out a nice way to
work around it. If eaccel has somehow figured out a way around this I'd
like to see it. I have never looked at that code and I don't
particularly want to, so if someone could provide a rough summary of how
they manage to override this _once logic I would appreciate it.
-Rasmus
