Re: [PATCH] Prelimit number of bytes to read in "vFile:pread:"

Gary Benson
2015-08-19T17:21:05Z

Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 04:50 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> > Sandra, could you please try this patch on your Altera 3c120 and
> > on your PandaBoard? I'm interested to know what the times are
> > now.
>
> Wow, this patch made a big improvement! On the nios2 board the
> startup took 18 seconds the first time and 10 seconds on subsequent
> attempts -- probably some NFS-level caching? On the PandaBoard it
> was 3 seconds or less.

Great :) It's in master and 7.10 now.

Could you try Pedro's readahead patch too? It's the third one here:

https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-08/msg00489.html

Maybe with the readahead_cache_invalidate in
remote_hostio_set_filesystem removed? I'm interested to see if that
helps any. You don't need the other two patches in that message.

> On 08/19/2015 07:42 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> > Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > BTW, the transfers seem to be always interruptible for me, even
> > > without Gary's patch, and even the slow ones.
> >
> > Ok, I'm glad I'm not the only one :)
>
> Unfortunately, I still can't see that ^C is doing anything useful
> for me. It is not coming back to a gdb prompt any sooner and "info
> sharedlibrary" afterwards prints the same thing whether or not I've
> tried to interrupt it. This was with unpatched FSF trunk. How am I
> supposed to tell whether ^C did anything? How are you guys telling
> that it is doing something useful? Is there supposed to be some
> sort of message? If the file transfer from the target is aborted, I
> think it should say that.

It stops immediately when I try it. I'm not familiar with ^C handling
either, so I don't know what would affect it. Pedro, could this be
a sync/async thing, or something to do with all-stop/non-stop?

> I'm also not seeing the warning on the initial sysroot file transfer
> from the target. I've lost track of this; was that patch not
> approved/committed yet?

It's not committed yet. It was part of a pair of patches, the other
being the interruptibility patch that didn't work for you.

If somebody approves the warning patch alone it I'll push it to master
and the branch. I'm slightly wary about adding a warning as one of
the Valgrind people said their testsuite started tripping over another
warning I recently added, but I think making sure users know what's
happening is more important... testsuites can be fixed :)

Thanks,
Gary

--