From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18627 invoked by alias); 30 May 2009 01:59:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 18488 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2009 01:59:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 May 2009 01:59:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4U1xaZF031877; Fri, 29 May 2009 21:59:36 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n4U1xZ1H028420; Fri, 29 May 2009 21:59:35 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-4.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.4]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4U1xYJY022441; Fri, 29 May 2009 21:59:34 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 99C9E3786D0; Fri, 29 May 2009 19:59:33 -0600 (MDT) To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Eliminate quadratic slow-down on number of solibs (part 2). References: <8ac60eac0905051749p3b5d14d9q8903b9de8e18137f@mail.gmail.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 01:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0905051749p3b5d14d9q8903b9de8e18137f@mail.gmail.com> (Paul Pluzhnikov's message of "Tue\, 5 May 2009 17\:49\:52 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00642.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Pluzhnikov writes: Paul> Attached is an alternative patch which subsumes the other two, Paul> and kills additional 15% of wasted CPU time. Paul> It feels like a hack, but I don't see how to achieve the same Paul> result in a cleaner way :-( I think the idea is sound: defer some updates until after a batch of updates has gone through. The problem is the implementation -- adding a new global is ugly. But, it seems to me that it would not be too hard to add a new flag argument to the call chain here. This would be a bit ad hoc, but so what? Tom