From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1KLPfI-000334-Gs for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:45:00 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLPfH-00032y-PX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44:59 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLPfF-00032m-9K for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44:58 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45465 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLPfF-00032j-6Q for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44:57 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:10547) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KLPfF-00005F-0z for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44:57 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO relay.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.81]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2008 17:44:55 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by relay.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00001618F22 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <20080722120632.7aa611ce@gibibit.com> References: <20080722084347.53863920@gibibit.com> <1216752511.5029.4.camel@dv> <20080722120632.7aa611ce@gibibit.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44:53 -0400 Message-Id: <1216763094.5601.1.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH] File readahead buffering X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:44:59 -0000 On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 12:06 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > I agree that TGA is not, in general, a great choice for an image format > (unless it is faster to load a large background image -- a 1024x768 RGB > PNG file may take more time to decompress than a TGA image would take > to load -- although perhaps an uncompressed PNG file would be > comparable in speed to load). However, I have not been able to load any > PNG images that I have tried to use. Something about the chunk type not > being supported. Strange. It's working for me. You may want to post that file to the list. > If the buffering is not done in the file I/O layer, then the font > loading, theme file loading, image file loading, etc. will all need to > do their own buffering, which IMHO is more error prone and makes those > modules use more code to handle low level I/O stuff, which detracts > from their specific purpose. > > Also, this is no small increase in speed, but from 10x to 100x increase > in performance for some cases where small sequential reads are > performed. OK, then you may have a case. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin