[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch |
Date: |
Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:01:47 +0100 |
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I was thinking a bit more about the patch just pushed.
> It sets the buffer size to 8*st_blksize which seems a
> little arbitrary, and also max buffer size is set to
> 32KiB even if the file system has a larger st_blksize.
> I'm not sure this is desired?
>
> How about making 32KiB the minimum as in the attached?
> The patch also changes `split` and `copy` to use the
> same IO size as `cat`.
...
> +#define IO_BLKSIZE(statbuf) (MAX(32*1024, ST_BLKSIZE(statbuf)))
That looks better. Thanks.
But please make it a static inline function, not a macro.
That will be more debugger-friendly.
- Degraded performance in cat + patch, Tzvi Rotshtein, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/11
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/11
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/11
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/11