On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:22:13 +0900
Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
From: Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com
To: enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [E-devel] [PATCH] ecore main loop fd_handlers_to_call list
optimization Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:22:13 +0900
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:56:45 -0500 Mike Blumenkrantz m...@zentific.com said:
i think we're confusing 2 issues. 1 is moving from O(n2) to O(n) and having
a mainloop that handles lots of fd's at all vs a a micro-optimisation patch
on top of it that makes very little difference at all. yes - it
Hi Mike,
Excuse my stupidity, but I don't suppose you could put this as a table
with something like:
Time %Dropped
Original
Ecore Cur
Ecore + MikeM
I don't fully understand your data, but your argument seems to be that
the final patch from mike continues
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 19:47 +0100, Dave Andreoli wrote:
The freeze hell will not be over at 1.0, we will have to freeze for 1.1 and so
on, we must accustom ourself to real software life cycle.
Obviously, but let's take it one hell at a time. Furthermore, in the
future it will be different
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz m...@zentific.com wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:18:02 +0100
Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Iván Briano (Sachiel)
sachi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/2 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com:
On
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:25:30 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:20:36 -0500 Mike Blumenkrantz m...@zentific.com said:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:18:02 +0100
Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Iván
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:20:36 -0500 Mike Blumenkrantz m...@zentific.com said:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:18:02 +0100
Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Iván Briano (Sachiel)
sachi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/2 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com:
On
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:22:13 +0900 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com
said:
probably is a good thing as its fewer mallocs in a loop. :)
Hi All,
Rather than using malloc'ed list entries in the mail loop, use a single
linked in-place list.
This avoid lots of mallocs and frees as the
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Mike Blumenkrantz m...@zentific.com wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:22:13 +0900
Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi All,
Rather than using malloc'ed list entries in the mail loop, use a single
linked in-place list.
This avoid lots of mallocs and
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Rather than using malloc'ed list entries in the mail loop, use a single
linked in-place list.
This avoid lots of mallocs and frees as the main loop iterates.
I like the idea, but I fear that doing change to
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 11:34 +0100, Cedric BAIL wrote:
I like the idea, but I fear that doing change to the core main loop
structure could break things. Maybe we should post pone this change to
1.1. From my point of view we already did to much change to ecore main
loop during the beta cycle.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com
wrote:
Rather than using malloc'ed list entries in the mail loop, use a single
linked in-place list.
This avoid lots of mallocs and frees as
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Cedric BAILcedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Mike McCormackmj.mccorm...@samsung.com
wrote:
Rather than using malloc'ed list entries in the mail loop, use a single
linked in-place
2010/12/2 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com:
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Cedric BAILcedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Mike McCormackmj.mccorm...@samsung.com
wrote:
Rather than using malloc'ed list
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Iván Briano (Sachiel)
sachi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/2 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com:
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Cedric BAILcedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Mike
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Come on guys.
The only reason that you're seeing this is that I don't commit directly to
SVN.
No, I object because it's a huge change that might introduce bugs. The
fact is that this feature freeze is taking
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Iván Briano (Sachiel) wrote:
2010/12/2 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com:
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Cedric BAILcedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Mike
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Come on guys.
The only reason that you're seeing this is that I don't commit directly to
SVN.
No, I object because it's a huge change that might introduce bugs. The
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Lucas De Marchi
lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Come on guys.
The only reason that you're seeing this is that I don't commit directly to
SVN.
No, I object because it's a
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:19 -0200, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Come on guys.
The only reason that you're seeing this is that I don't commit directly to
SVN.
No, I object because it's a huge change that might
2010/12/2 Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@partner.samsung.com:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:19 -0200, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Come on guys.
The only reason that you're seeing this is that I don't commit directly to
SVN.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Dave Andreoli d...@gurumeditation.it wrote:
2010/12/2 Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@partner.samsung.com:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:19 -0200, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mike McCormack
mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Come on guys.
The
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:18:02 +0100
Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Iván Briano (Sachiel)
sachi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/2 Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com:
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Cedric
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:54:36 -0200 Lucas De Marchi
lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi said:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Dave Andreoli d...@gurumeditation.it wrote:
2010/12/2 Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@partner.samsung.com:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:19 -0200, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2,
Hi All,
Rather than using malloc'ed list entries in the mail loop, use a single linked
in-place list.
This avoid lots of mallocs and frees as the main loop iterates.
thanks,
Mike
From cd148e46e37f11b603df89faa5e0d86f7382ac9a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike McCormack
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:22:13 +0900
Mike McCormack mj.mccorm...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi All,
Rather than using malloc'ed list entries in the mail loop, use a single
linked in-place list.
This avoid lots of mallocs and frees as the main loop iterates.
thanks,
Mike
Tested, produces a
26 matches
Mail list logo
