From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 7 10:42:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from green.homeunix.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C7F16A4CE; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (green@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.homeunix.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i37HgaLi081038; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:42:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org) Message-Id: <200404071742.i37HgaLi081038@green.homeunix.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Tim Kientzle In-Reply-To: Message from Tim Kientzle of "Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:30:55 PDT." <40743ACF.9090701@kientzle.com> From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 13:42:36 -0400 Sender: green@green.homeunix.org cc: Ruslan Ermilov cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tar Makefile bsdtar.1 bsdtar.c bsdtar.h bsdtar_platform.h matching.c read.c util.c write.c X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:42:41 -0000 Tim Kientzle wrote: > Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > Tim Kientzle wrote: > > > >>Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 02:32:18PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>kientzle 2004/04/05 14:32:18 PDT > >>>> > >>>> FreeBSD src repository > >>>> > >>>> Added files: > >>>> usr.bin/tar Makefile bsdtar.1 bsdtar.c bsdtar.h > >>>> bsdtar_platform.h matching.c read.c > >>>> util.c write.c > >>>> Log: > >>>> Initial commit for bsdtar. > >>>> > > > > What if you do compression as a worker thread? I don't know how performance > > compares, but proof of concept is: > > > > I'll take a look at your code, but I'm reluctant to spawn > threads within a library for a number of reasons, ranging from > client expectations (if you invoke the client-provided I/O > routines within a separate thread, then you can encounter > a situation where a non-threaded program might have to lock > it's private data) to the potential for conflicts between > threaded/non-threaded libc implementations. Oh, I was only implementing it inside the libarchive default routines because it was easy. I also think that if this is done to speed up tar, it should be done in tar and not libarchive. What are you using to benchmark? I'm interested in seeing what happens with a worker thread/with a larger decompression buffer/etc. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\