Re: SystemDependentDataBuffer bits ...

[Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 26/04/2019 13:43, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Right - IIRC that was very trivial hairlines there, not much value in
> buffering that -

	=)

>> 	* should we not disable the SystemDependentDataBuffer ie.
>> 	  remove:
>>
>>                 if(maEntries.empty() && maTimer)
>>                     maTimer->Stop();
>>
>> 	  from there we can stop ourselves in the timeout if necessary.
>
> Not sure I get the question - surely disabling the timer helps to get
> scheduler load down? As this code is already inside implTimeoutHdl().

	I rather suspect that adding and removing a timer a very large number
of times has a potentially significant cost. Whereas adding a timer once
- and (when it happens a second later) - noticing there is nothing to do
and removing it has a very small cost once per second. Also makes
logging & debugging scheduler related issues much nicer.

> Just a bit concerned we'd flip-flop between optimizing for different
> cases here - some perf test rig would be ideal I guess..

	If we get the low hanging fruit I guess we win and leave the detail to
the future =)

	ATB,

		Michael.

-- 
michael.meeks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejmeeks@xxxxxxxxx, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice