URGENT : elf_update - low performance with large files ? (fwd)

[J.C. Pizarro]

2007/7/26, Anitha Boyapati <anithab@sankhya.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Pizarro,
>
>   (hope I got the name correctly!). The central idea of patch
> is nice. Although it is obvious from the patch, just to say -
> you are printing out the elf data structure size by means of 'len'
> and the command mode Elf_Cmd 'cmd'. But I fail to understand the purpose
> of Elf * . It started off with some address and then went for another!
>
>  The report quite clearly says the length is shooting off.
> I didnt have a heart to run it completely. Neverthless,
> I am not sure about attaching quite a big file after running it for 1 hour
> :-)
>
>  I am giving a much more truncated version here -
>
> elf: 0x09DAD0D0 ; cmd_code: 2
> len: 144
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 2
> len: 208
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 248
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 2
> len: 272
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 312
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 2
> len: 336
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 376
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 412
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 2
> len: 436
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 476
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 492
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 2
> len: 516  ----------------------->      // After this no cmd_code = 2 is used
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 556
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 572
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 588
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 604
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 604
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 604
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 604
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> ...
>
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 218096
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 218100
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 218100
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 218100
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 218100
> elf: 0x09DB9F40 ; cmd_code: 0
> len: 218104     --------------------------> After 1 hour
>
>
>  I am mostly a beginer to this elf thing. From the report
>  above, I am not sure that I deduce anthing. Well my testcase
>  is a series of .byte directives (its an image)
>
>  Thanks for the response. Could you also throw some light on
>  the findings -if any- from the above.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>
> > Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
> >
> > After runned it, see "quickdirty.log" and post here your report's summary.
> >
> > ;)
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Anitha B
> @S A N K H Y A

0 is ELF_C_NULL
1 is ELF_C_READ
2 is ELF_C_WRITE

You can have an idea that the problem is not in the writing of files, but
it's growing slow!!!

No ELF_C_READ here!!!