On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 07:03:13PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 18:29, Linus Torvalds
> <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > It's a bit complicated, yes. But no, doing things one unicode
> > character at a time is just bad bad bad.
>
> Put another way: the _point_ of UTF-8 is that ASCII is still ASCII.
> It's literally why UTF-8 doesn't suck.
>
> So you can still compare ASCII strings as-is.
>
> No, that doesn't help people who are really using other locales, and
> are actively using complicated characters.
>
> But it very much does mean that you can compare "Bad" and "bad" and
> never ever look at any unicode translation ever.
Yeah, agreed, that would be a nice optimization. However, in the
unfortunate case where (a) it's non-ASCII, and (b) the input string is
non-normalized and/or differs in case, we end up scanning some portion
of the two strings twice; once doing the strcmp, and once doing the
Unicode slow path.
That being said, given that even in the case where we're dealing with
non-ASCII strings, in the fairly common case where the program is
doing a readdir() followed by a open() or stat(), the filename will be
byte-identical and so a strcmp() will suffice.
So I agree that it's a nice optimization. It'd be interesting how
much such an optimization would actually show up in various
benchmarks. It'd have to be something that was really metadata-heavy,
or else the filenamea lookups would get drowned out.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
