Martin Mathieson wrote:
After remembering that profiling (at least in its easiest form with
the 'time' command) isn't so hard, I played around a bit. After
building a decent-sized dct2000 file (taking the sample from
SampleCaptures and merging it with itself until I had a 276 Mb
file), I tried before and after this change and I can't find a
measurable difference in the CPU usage. I even tried forcing my
(AMD) CPU down to 1 GHz to exaggerate the difference, but I still
got only a couple of seconds CPU time difference out of over 5
minutes--and in that case rev 35393's code was faster.
Maybe I'll try tomorrow on a SPARC: I know that memcpy()s are a lot
more expensive there than on x86.
I think you win, the difference isn't worth it and it'd be better not to
leave unnecessary examples of tvb_get_ptr() use around.
I tried with SPARC today and I do see a consistent 0.9% difference in
CPU time before and after 35393. (In particular I see about 6-7 seconds
of extra CPU time in a tshark job that takes around 11 minutes and 50
seconds.)
Don't know if that difference is significant enough to matter.
Soon after that I realised that to spend 30% of CPU reading text lines
from the file (in wiretap) was too high. When I configured to compile
without zlib support that went down to 0.3%, and I haven't worried too
much about performance since then.
I remember you mentioning that before... Another reason to kick zlib
out so we can be sure to have fast random access to files. :-)
