Re: [PATCH RFC] 1/2 central workspace for zlib

Jörn Engel
2003-06-02T16:36:33Z

On Mon, 2 June 2003 16:59:25 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:53, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > Maybe lazy allocation. vmalloc() it with the first write(), which
> > should be never in production use. So the extra overhead doesn't
> > really matter.
>
> Seems reasonable.

Patch is in CVS.

Not 100% sure about the correct return code, if the lazy allocation
fails. Can you check that?

Matsunaga, I guess that the extra memory you now have on your machine
has more impact on performance than statical allocation would have.
Translate the saved memory into a monetary unit and you even have a
lart that works for managers.

Jörn

--
You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks
occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a
speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is.
-- Rob Pike