[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: [rfc] sed option `-i' (edit in place)
From:       Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux () googlemail ! com>
Date:       2007-08-29 11:41:38
Message-ID: 200708291241.38877.vda.linux () googlemail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 27 August 2007 08:04, Johan Adolfsson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: busybox-bounces@busybox.net
> > [mailto:busybox-bounces@busybox.net] On Behalf Of Cristian
> > Ionescu-Idbohrn
> > Sent: den 26 augusti 2007 23:21
> > To: busybox@busybox.net
> > Subject: Re: [rfc] sed option `-i' (edit in place)
> >
> > > Does stock sed do this?
> >
> > No.  GNU sed is doing something similar to bb-sed (or the other way
> > around):
> >
> > ,----
> >
> > | open("lines", O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) = 3
> > | ioctl(3, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or TCGETS, 0xbfd35068) = -1
> >
> > ENOTTY (Inappropriate ioctl for device)
> >
> > | fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=8, ...}) = 0
> > | gettimeofday({1188158729, 155778}, NULL) = 0
> > | getpid()                                = 19852
> > | open("./sedSTqTlj", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL|O_LARGEFILE, 0600) = 10
> > | fcntl64(10, F_GETFL)                    = 0x8002 (flags
> >
> > O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE)
> >
> > | fstat64(10, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0600, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
> > | mmap2(NULL, 131072, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> >
> > MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7dfe000
> >
> > | _llseek(10, 0, [0], SEEK_CUR)           = 0
> > | fchmod(10, 0100644)                     = 0
> > | fchown32(10, 1000, 1000)                = 0
> > | fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=8, ...}) = 0
> > | mmap2(NULL, 131072, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> >
> > MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7dde000
> >
> > | read(3, "fxx\nbar\n", 131072)           = 8
> > | write(10, "fxx\n", 4)                   = 4
> > | write(10, "bar\n", 4)                   = 4
> > | read(3, "", 131072)                     = 0
> > | close(3)                                = 0
> > | munmap(0xb7dde000, 131072)              = 0
> > | close(10)                               = 0
> > | munmap(0xb7dfe000, 131072)              = 0
> > | rename("./sedSTqTlj", "lines")          = 0
> > | close(1)                                = 0
> > | close(2)                                = 0
> >
> > `----
>
> Wouldn't we get reduced wearing and possibly a general speed up as well,
> if we made sure sed was buffering stuff more and avoiding small writes
> to the filesystem?

Yes, small writes are undesirable, but for different reason: write syscall
overhead can take significant time, and if you pipe gigabytes of data thru
sed, you dont want that.

However, weigh speed gains against possibly bigger code and bigger buffers
(memory consumption).

> Then there shouldn't be much difference in flash wearing compared to a
> copy.

Unless you mounted the fs with O_SYNC, writes are buffered by kernel anyway.
--
vda
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]