[Nepomuk] Review Request: FileWatch: Avoid calling the addWatch function recursively
Commit Hook
null at kde.org
Sun Dec 2 17:58:15 UTC 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107529/#review22915
-----------------------------------------------------------
This review has been submitted with commit 8f35439c3804dfa8b521100a44aa89d5140f772a by Vishesh Handa to branch master.
- Commit Hook
On Dec. 1, 2012, 11:14 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107529/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 1, 2012, 11:14 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for Nepomuk, Sebastian Trueg and Simeon Bird.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> FileWatch: Avoid calling the addWatch function recursively
>
> A watch needs to be added for each directory. If we try to add the
> watches recursively, then at each level a new string is allocated which
> consumes memory. This memory is eventually freed, but that doesn't
> decrease the filewatch service's memory footprint.
>
> Additionally, this extra memory can be quite large depending on how your
> directory is structed. For me it makes a memory difference of about
> 50mb, but bug reports indicate that it can go as high as 2gb.
>
> _k_addWatches() now only adds one watch and then calls itself. It
> additionally traverses the file system tree in a depth first manner in
> order to avoid extra memory allocations. (Breadth first costs more
> memory)
>
> BUG: 310556
>
>
> This addresses bug 310556.
> http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310556
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> services/filewatch/kinotify.cpp e540f76
>
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107529/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Memory footprint reduced from 65 to 17mb.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vishesh Handa
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/nepomuk/attachments/20121202/6887414c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Nepomuk
mailing list