Re: performance issue questions

I think you are talking about the case for FAT. we do wait for 2 seconds to
exit because the resolution of mtime on FAT is it. though it doesn't help
for running many processes to update caches because it isn't a singleton
process and other process can access caches and the targeted
directories/fonts during updating.
fc-cache might be multi-threading but I'm not sure if writing caches is the
thread-safety nor worth doing so. and if we do, doing it as a single
process like demonizing may be better, to avoid complication.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote:

> Akira TAGOH <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The former one was what I took measures for that. I expect it works as
> long
> > as the process is done within the most accurate time.
>
> Is there some place we could add a suitable delay to ensure that file
> system without sub-section timestamps could get reliable results using
> inexpensive timestamp checking, rather than expensive file scanning? I
> recall placing a 'sleep' in the cache generation code, but presumably
> that's insufficient?
>
> --
> -keith
>



-- 
Akira TAGOH

_______________________________________________
Fontconfig mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig