27 Nov
2008
27 Nov
'08
6:59 p.m.
On Nov 27, 2008 at 18:27, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/08 17:51, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
yes, but is it advisable to do it with big buffers ... ?
It depends, but in general yes, unless you have something very big.
A few k shouldn't be any problem,
The performance overhead is only 1 cycle when entering the function,
when using the stack (sp-=sizeof(buffer)) and from the cache point of
view there is no difference since you write to it anyway.
Andrei
On Nov 27, 2008 at 16:22, Henning Westerholt
<henning.westerholt(a)1und1.de> wrote:
>On Thursday 27 November 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>
>>There seem to be many places where static buffers are used for building
>>strings. It is clear they are used just for usage inside some functions,
>>with no need to keep the value for usage somewhere else.
>>
>>Would defining a global static buffer to be used for such cases make
>>sense? The access to the pointer and size can be given via functions.
>>
>>There could be couple of such buffers to be used in the cases one
>>function need concurrent access to more than one ... opinions? It will
>>reduce memory space reserved and used...
>>
>Hi Daniel,
>
>what about getting rid of this static buffers completely? If we want to
>go multi-threaded sometimes,
he, he ... let's look closer in the future ... and from management
perspective looks easier if they are collected in one place.
we need
to lock every access. And i doubt it really
makes a difference from the performance POV nowadays. The only issue i
could think of is eventual memory fragementation..
We could use buffers on the stack as much as possible (we don't need to
pkg_malloc all the buffers).