Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756159AbXJ2DEi (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:04:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751837AbXJ2DEa (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:04:30 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([66.93.16.53]:50810 "EHLO waste.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751432AbXJ2DEa (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:04:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:03:52 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Rusty Russell Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] stringbuf: A string buffer implementation Message-ID: <20071029030352.GC19691@waste.org> References: <20071024195847.GE27248@parisc-linux.org> <20071026115727.GR27248@parisc-linux.org> <20071026205714.GQ17536@waste.org> <200710272009.31430.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200710272009.31430.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1611 Lines: 35 On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 08:09:30PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Saturday 27 October 2007 06:57:14 Matt Mackall wrote: > > Well I expect once you start letting people easily build strings by > > concatenation, you'll very shortly afterwards have people using them > > in loops. And having hidden O(n^2) behavior in there is a little sad, > > even though n will tend to be small and well-bounded. If we can do > > something simple to avoid it, we should. > > Hi Matt, > > I avoid typing even a single character of optimization until it's > justified. This is partially a reaction against the machoptimization > tendencies of many kernel programmers, but it's mainly a concern at the > kernel's complexity creep. > > Meanwhile, of course, I've now spent far too long analyzing this :) > > Building a 1000 byte string 1 byte at a time involves 6 reallocs (SLAB) or 10 > reallocs (SLUB). Frankly, that's good enough without an explicit alloc > length field (better in some ways). And on SLOB, which doesn't have those bloaty power-of-2 constraints? Looks like ~500 reallocs, including 250000 bytes of memcpy. Ouch! SLAB and SLUB (accidentally) internalize the optimization that I'm proposing: grow the string by a constant factor at each step. Failing to do that makes the behavior dismal. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/