Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Appearance settings

Conversation

@uckelman-sf
Copy link
Contributor

@uckelman-sf uckelman-sf commented Dec 17, 2024

Replace the legacy cache used by TSK_IMG_INFO with a cache that has O(1) insertion and lookup.

@uckelman-sf uckelman-sf marked this pull request as draft December 17, 2024 13:36
@uckelman-sf uckelman-sf force-pushed the cache_working branch 10 times, most recently from 5bcd42a to 2816645 Compare December 19, 2024 14:42
@uckelman-sf uckelman-sf force-pushed the cache_working branch 4 times, most recently from 9aac66b to 6f8744c Compare January 10, 2025 16:45
@uckelman-sf uckelman-sf changed the title Image block cache refactoring Image block cache improvement Jan 10, 2025
@uckelman-sf uckelman-sf force-pushed the cache_working branch 3 times, most recently from d2612a0 to 02d22ba Compare January 13, 2025 15:57
@simsong
Copy link
Member

simsong commented Jan 14, 2025

Hi. I'm curious about the use of the C++ timers in here. Do you have thoughts on this, as to why they are being used, and what they are for?

@uckelman-sf
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi. I'm curious about the use of the C++ timers in here. Do you have thoughts on this, as to why they are being used, and what they are for?

They're for collecting caching stats.

@simsong
Copy link
Member

simsong commented Jan 14, 2025

But they just give wall time, right? Wouldn't CPU performance registers or os time functions be more accurate?

@uckelman-sf
Copy link
Contributor Author

uckelman-sf commented Jan 15, 2025

But they just give wall time, right? Wouldn't CPU performance registers or os time functions be more accurate?

CPU performance registers and os time functions don't measure wall clock time, which is what I want here.

@uckelman-sf uckelman-sf force-pushed the cache_working branch 3 times, most recently from 02ef442 to 7a49e97 Compare January 20, 2025 14:46
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 20, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 59.63303% with 88 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 25.13%. Comparing base (484a7e8) to head (c64b34c).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
tsk/img/img_open.cpp 49.11% 57 Missing ⚠️
tsk/img/img_io.cpp 82.81% 11 Missing ⚠️
tsk/img/lru_cache.cpp 75.86% 7 Missing ⚠️
tsk/pool/apfs_pool_compat.cpp 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
tsk/img/img_types.cpp 0.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
tsk/fs/logical_fs.cpp 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
tsk/pool/apfs_pool.cpp 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3138      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    25.15%   25.13%   -0.02%     
===========================================
  Files          149      150       +1     
  Lines        36969    36994      +25     
  Branches      7115     7116       +1     
===========================================
- Hits          9297     9295       -2     
- Misses       27672    27699      +27     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
tsk/auto/db_sqlite.cpp 0.00% <ø> (ø)
tsk/fs/dcat_lib.cpp 0.00% <ø> (ø)
tsk/fs/dls_lib.cpp 0.00% <ø> (ø)
tsk/fs/icat_lib.cpp 0.00% <ø> (ø)
tsk/fs/yaffs.cpp 10.27% <ø> (ø)
tsk/img/legacy_cache.cpp 0.00% <ø> (-85.71%) ⬇️
tsk/img/mult_files.cpp 88.61% <ø> (ø)
tsk/img/raw.cpp 48.73% <ø> (ø)
tsk/util/file_system_utils.cpp 68.75% <ø> (ø)
tsk/pool/apfs_pool.cpp 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 6 more

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.