Re: [Evolution-hackers] Loading really large E-mails on devices with not enough Vm
- From: Philip Van Hoof <spam pvanhoof be>
- To: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>
- Cc: evolution <evolution-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] Loading really large E-mails on devices with not enough Vm
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:09:54 +0100
We'll try this, and if it works for all mails that we wanted to test,
I'll let you know.
Thanks a lot! Adding Modest's project manager in CC
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 23:22 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Something like the attached patch might work, tho it is untested.
> If this doesn't work, then I suspect the problem is that the seek
> position might get changed out from under the mime parser (assuming it
> is using either a CamelStreamFs or an fd).
> Note that camel_stream_fs_new_with_fd[_and_bounds]() calls lseek() on
> the fd passed in.
> >From the dup() man page:
> After a successful return from dup() or dup2(), the old and new file
> descriptors may be used interchangeably. They refer to the same open
> file description (see open(2)) and thus share file offset and file sta‐
> tus flags; for example, if the file offset is modified by using
> lseek(2) on one of the descriptors, the offset is also changed for the
> So my guess is that this will break the parser :(
> It might break in the stream case as well, you'd have to follow the code
> paths a bit to know for sure. For instance, even if creating the
> seekable substream doesn't perform an underlying seek on the original
> stream, setting it in a data wrapper might call camel_stream_reset()
> which /might/ do an lseek() on the source fs stream.
> Not an insurmountable problem to solve, but it does make things a little
> more difficult and possibly touchy.
> On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 22:48 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 22:12 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 13:44 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > > > This is what happens if you try to open a truly large E-mail on a device
> > > > that has not as much memory available:
> > > >
> > > > Is there something we can do about this? Can we change the MIME parsing
> > > > algorithm to be less memory demanding for example?
> > > >
> > > > Note that GArray is not really very sparse with memory once you start
> > > > having a really large array. Perhaps we can in stead change this to a
> > > > normal pointer array of a fixed size (do we know the size before we
> > > > start parsing, so that we can allocate an exact size in stead, perhaps?)
> > >
> > > eh, why would you change it to a GPtrArray? It doesn't hold pointers, it
> > > holds message part content.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately we don't know the size ahead of time.
> > >
> > > I suppose you could use a custom byte array allocator so that you can
> > > force it to grow by larger chunks or something, dunno.
> > >
> > >
> > > The way GMime handles this is by not loading content into RAM, but
> > > that may be harder to do with Camel, especially in the mbox case.
> > er, I should probably explain this:
> > - writing the code should be relatively easy to do, but in the mbox
> > case, the mbox may end up getting expunged or rewritten for some other
> > reason which may cause problems, not sure how that would work.
> > I think in Maildir, as long as the fd remains open, the file won't
> > actually disappear after an unlink() until the fd gets closed, so that
> > might work out ok assuming you can spare the fd (which might be the
> > other problem with Evolution?).
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
] [Thread Prev