[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations.
From: |
Lyndon Nerenberg |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations. |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:11:44 -0800 |
On 2012-12-11, at 6:04 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> So, think about the data flow for a second. mhl reads the body of the
> message in (using m_getfld()!) and then writes it to a pipe. replyfilter
> reads it from the pipe and then processes it. So we're talking about
> a stdio read, a copy from the stdio buffer to the mhl input buffer, then
> write() results in a copy from the mhl input buffer to the kernel, and then
> there is a copy from the kernel to replyfilter's input (not sure if that's
> using stdio there). So that's at least 4 copies. I tested replyfilter out
> with files in the tens of megabytes and I didn't notice any delay (the
> bulk of the messages were attachments that replyfilter didn't output, but
> it still had to read the whole message). So yeah, that would have bogged
> down 20 years ago, but not today.
Perhaps the optimization needed here isn't in the buffer copies, per se :-)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, (continued)
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, Ralph Corderoy, 2012/12/11
- [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/12/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/12/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations., chad, 2012/12/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/12/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations., Chad Brown, 2012/12/12
Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations., Ken Hornstein, 2012/12/11
Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2012/12/11
Re: [Nmh-workers] Pessimal Optimizations.,
Lyndon Nerenberg <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, David Levine, 2012/12/11
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, David Levine, 2012/12/16