Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 02:30:06 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192 Message-ID: <72720EA2-C251-40B9-9EC0-702C07D5EDF9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <77803.1431590500@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20150511230635.GA46991@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150512032307.GP37063@funkthat.com> <14994.1431412293@critter.freebsd.dk> <20150513080342.GE37063@funkthat.com> <A1224018-7540-4C76-91EF-AEA2655E49A8@FreeBSD.org> <55530CC3.1090204@selasky.org> <1431528249.1221.15.camel@freebsd.org> <CAJ-VmonL9mT4JLqfSefKYiwv5-ecLkx9RZ5=kXt__%2Bs9iO4%2B9Q@mail.gmail.com> <20150513181347.GM37063@funkthat.com> <1431542835.1221.30.camel@freebsd.org> <77803.1431590500@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_3D45A5D2-5BC5-4B7D-BFCE-0D489B5A074E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On May 14, 2015, at 1:01, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > -------- > In message <1431542835.1221.30.camel@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >> On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >=20 >> As I've already pointed out, BUFSIZ appears in the >> base code over 2000 times. Where is the analysis of the impact an 8x >> change is going to have on all those uses? >=20 > Not to pick on Ian in particular, but I'm going to call bike-shed > on this discussion now. >=20 > Please just make it 4K on 32bit archs and 16K on 64 bit archs, and > get on with your lives. >=20 > If experience in -current (that's why developers run current, right = ?!) > documents that this was the wrong decision, we can revisit it. >=20 > Until then: Shut up and code. Baptiste=92s recommendation was related to md5 performance, so it might = be that (as you pointed out with MDXFileChunk), things might be less = performant in the application than they could be =97 but that=92s an = application bug (only helped by scaling issues with FreeBSD, = potentially). Until performance has been characterized on 32-bit vs = 64-bit architectures, blanket changing a value doesn=92t make sense. I think that changing buffers sized at BUFSIZ for md5/libmd5 probably = makes a lot more sense as that change is isolated and the end result = could be easily micro benchmarked. If/when we have an overall = characterization we can look at increasing the value across the board. Thanks! -NGie --Apple-Mail=_3D45A5D2-5BC5-4B7D-BFCE-0D489B5A074E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVVGseAAoJEMZr5QU6S73eXywIALZHKkiI/SycxRvlLjfEuU49 XvHLyOr5fOMGoQoCo/93XeEBtltV4KruFLPkcxg/UP21jL7ZP3kFeQK61l14erte V6ygAXDTtzbG3mAfNDhGWKoACggwXXdXnyEgczbje707wSo8IFpwt/lefKF/nJ+Y TRUKNsBMb7QK2/M8nCnuHRTBRelk0Y9g5QXcBztsPoKaRBTYtYo+BvV6p4+LUzFO TqhoHmXp/P5P2a6ryW9O0ESVWaukSZUsMpSejaiZxYo7KJQZyiXrJ9tvd2UCntCh ABnahnu1KmWwRRDIk9CC23zIM8FRMZGpnKNtEs8XwzV6OJtbewZ/qK0vojqe/mQ= =a30F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3D45A5D2-5BC5-4B7D-BFCE-0D489B5A074E--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?72720EA2-C251-40B9-9EC0-702C07D5EDF9>