Re: Beagle CPU usage (was Proposed module: tracker)
- From: Hans Petter Jansson <hpj novell com>
- To: Xavier Bestel <xavier bestel free fr>
- Cc: Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com>, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>, Desktop Devel <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Beagle CPU usage (was Proposed module: tracker)
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:13:36 -0600
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 00:28 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On mar, 2007-03-27 at 14:52 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > [/me wonders if thumbnailers are measurably faster by using mmap()
> > instead of read()...]
> It depends on their access pattern. If they need sequential access,
> read() is better because it can do prefetching (readahead).
I think what Federico was getting at is that for most thumbnailers,
rendering is likely to be a bigger bottleneck than I/O on a local file
system. But we don't know this for sure until we've measured it.
mmap() can do prefetching too - and it will likely load a 4k page at a
time anyway. So I doubt prefetch plays a role in a comparison of read()
and mmap().
I tend to favor read() on user data:
- For robustness: An mmap() map can become invalid if the file is
truncated, crashing the process.
- Because mmap() makes your VSize - and with accesses, your RSS - grow
correspondingly, with subsequent bug reports from irate users.
--
Hans Petter
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]