This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Make remote transfers interruptible
- From: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:10:14 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make remote transfers interruptible
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55C3A10F dot 3010106 at codesourcery dot com> <1439389814-29211-1-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <55CB8300 dot 3060004 at codesourcery dot com>
Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 08/12/2015 08:30 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> >Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > >On 08/05/2015 09:28 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> > > > This commit makes it possible to interrupt slow remote file
> > > > transfers.
> > > >
> > > > gdb/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * gdb_bfd.c (gdb_bfd_iovec_fileio_pread): Add QUIT call.
> > >
> > > It still does not work for me. :-(
> >
> > Could you please try this newer version and see if it allows you
> > to interrupt the remote transfers?
>
> This version still doesn't make the transfer interruptable with ^C.
Then I am out of ideas :( I can interrupt on my setup with either
patch (I tested it by adding a 100ms usleep in gdbserver/hostio.c
handle_pread).
I will push a warning-printing patch to HEAD, so that users in your
situation at least have some feedback on what is happening. Could
you please look at making the transfers interruptible?
Joel, would you like me to also push it to the 7.10 branch, or will
you do that?
> *But*, with this patch, the startup time is reduced from 4 minutes
> to 19 seconds. Huh? Is it really transferring the entire file
> contents, or was the time being used for some GDB-side operation
> that is quadratic or exponential in the size of the read requested
> rather than the actual byte transfer? Independently of the ^C
> issue, I think we need to better understand what is going on here
> and better tune the code on both sides of the RSP for large file
> transfers.
That's pretty weird. It sounds like there's real scope for you
to improve performance here.
Thanks,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/