On Nov 27, 2008 at 18:27, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/27/08 17:51, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote: > >On Nov 27, 2008 at 16:22, Henning Westerholt > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On Thursday 27 November 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > >> > >>>There seem to be many places where static buffers are used for building > >>>strings. It is clear they are used just for usage inside some functions, > >>>with no need to keep the value for usage somewhere else. > >>> > >>>Would defining a global static buffer to be used for such cases make > >>>sense? The access to the pointer and size can be given via functions. > >>> > >>>There could be couple of such buffers to be used in the cases one > >>>function need concurrent access to more than one ... opinions? It will > >>>reduce memory space reserved and used... > >>> > >>Hi Daniel, > >> > >>what about getting rid of this static buffers completely? If we want to > >>go multi-threaded sometimes, > > he, he ... let's look closer in the future ... and from management > perspective looks easier if they are collected in one place. > > > >> we need to lock every access. And i doubt it really > >>makes a difference from the performance POV nowadays. The only issue i > >>could think of is eventual memory fragementation.. > >> > > > >We could use buffers on the stack as much as possible (we don't need to > >pkg_malloc all the buffers). > > > yes, but is it advisable to do it with big buffers ... ?
It depends, but in general yes, unless you have something very big. A few k shouldn't be any problem, The performance overhead is only 1 cycle when entering the function, when using the stack (sp-=sizeof(buffer)) and from the cache point of view there is no difference since you write to it anyway. Andrei _______________________________________________ Serdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
