SystemDependentDataBuffer bits ...

Michael Meeks michael.meeks at
Fri Apr 26 15:26:00 UTC 2019

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 =)



michael.meeks at <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejmeeks at, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list