GNU bug report logs - #20029
'yes' surprisingly slow

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 20029 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: Ole Tange <tange <at> gnu.org>, 20029 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#20029: 'yes' surprisingly slow
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:47:43 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 07/03/15 12:10, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 07/03/15 11:49, Ole Tange wrote:
>> These two commands give the same output:
>>
>> $ yes `echo {1..1000}` | head -c 2300M | md5sum
>> a0241f2247e9a37db60e7def3e4f7038  -
>>
>> $ yes "`echo {1..1000}`" | head -c 2300M | md5sum
>> a0241f2247e9a37db60e7def3e4f7038  -
>>
>> But the time to run is quite different:
>>
>> $ time yes "`echo {1..1000}`" | head -c 2300M >/dev/null
>>
>> real    0m0.897s
>> user    0m0.384s
>> sys     0m1.343s
>>
>> $ time yes `echo {1..1000}` | head -c 2300M >/dev/null
>>
>> real    0m11.352s
>> user    0m10.571s
>> sys     0m2.590s
>>
>> WTF?!
>>
>> I imagine 'yes' spends a lot of time collecting the 1000 args. But why
>> does it do that more than once?
> 
> The stdio interactions dominate here.
> The slow case has 1000 times more fputs_unlocked() calls.
> Yes we could build the line up once and output that.
> If doing that we could also build up a BUFSIZ of complete lines
> to output at a time, in which case you'd probably avoid stdio altogether.

The attached should make things more efficient here.

thanks,
Pádraig.

[yes-efficiency.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.