diff options
| author | Mattias Andrée <maandree@kth.se> | 2017-06-15 17:02:58 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Mattias Andrée <maandree@kth.se> | 2017-06-15 17:02:58 +0200 |
| commit | c893d4d94e49982664908001057d16a056a923d8 (patch) | |
| tree | f2fb1f59ae651941a1c860c26254cf419894d837 | |
| parent | m readme (diff) | |
| download | yes-silly-c893d4d94e49982664908001057d16a056a923d8.tar.gz yes-silly-c893d4d94e49982664908001057d16a056a923d8.tar.bz2 yes-silly-c893d4d94e49982664908001057d16a056a923d8.tar.xz | |
m
Signed-off-by: Mattias Andrée <maandree@kth.se>
| -rw-r--r-- | README | 15 |
1 files changed, 15 insertions, 0 deletions
@@ -2,6 +2,21 @@ GNU yes(1) is not that fast! This implementaion is not only about 8 times as fast[0], it uses half as much CPU. +Note that this implementation is not even +optimal, the overhead at the start can be +reduced by creating a buffer as large as +the pipe and fill that buffer and only do +one write(2) or vmsplice(2) to the pipe. +Speaking of this overhead, this implementation +is completely useless[1] unless the other +program is will even read {PIPE_BUF} bytes +(4096 on Linux, 512 on POSIX). Therefore, +this implementation of yes(1) is just silly +and should not be used by anyone. + [0] On my computer. If you get different results please leave a comment. + +[1] Has no benefits what so every in any + aspect at all. |