On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 12/1/05, Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:48 -0600, dionisos@tigris.org wrote:
> > Create a subpool to allocate SVN_STREAM_CHUNK_SIZE buffers. Just before
> > completing successfully, clean the subpool to free the 100kB buffer.
>
> I don't understand the need for this. If the function is being called
> in a loop, the loop should be using an iteration pool. If the function
> is not being called from a loop, 100K is noise.
>This commit is a consequence of lundblad 'complaining' about the fact
>that I left a buffer allocated in libsvn_subr/subst.c. That buffer was
>about the same size. So, I looked where else the buffer was allocated
>and disposed of, moving the allocation to a subpool if it wasn't
>already.
I was complaining about a case where two such buffers were used by a
stream object. That stretches the "noise" level a bit too far IMO. Say you
use a few such streams (not in a loop). Then we start to waste megabytes
just for too big buffers.
As I've stated before, my preferred fix is to shrink the buffer size used
from 100K to something more sensible (like 8K or 16K). There is no point
in using such a large chunk and it has some problems. Then the above
commit is unnecessary since allocating some kilobytes really *is* noise...
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Dec 1 08:41:24 2005