[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071026205714.GQ17536@waste.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:57:14 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] stringbuf: A string buffer implementation
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 05:57:27AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 12:11:01PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > This just seems like more optimization and complexity that we need. Interfaces
> > using vsnprintf don't seem like good candidates for optimization.
>
> That's a fair point, but I'm optimising for fewer trips into the
> slab(/slub/slob) allocator, and thus having less of an impact on the
> rest of the system. Given that 'an alloc on every call' was one of the
> complaints Matt had about my v1 stringbuf patch, I can't imagine he'll
> be happy about this one either.
Well I expect once you start letting people easily build strings by
concatenation, you'll very shortly afterwards have people using them
in loops. And having hidden O(n^2) behavior in there is a little sad,
even though n will tend to be small and well-bounded. If we can do
something simple to avoid it, we should.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists