Bug 133824

Summary: fc-list is too slow
Product: [openSUSE] SUSE Linux 10.1 Reporter: Andreas Schwab <schwab>
Component: X11 ApplicationsAssignee: Stephan Kulow <coolo>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED QA Contact: Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch>
Severity: Normal    
Priority: P5 - None    
Version: unspecified   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: Other   
OS: Other   
Whiteboard:
Found By: Other Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---

Description Andreas Schwab 2005-11-15 13:44:31 UTC 
# time fc-list FZHeiTi file index
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x600000000007442b, ip=0x200000000009fa81
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x6000000000027e35, ip=0x200000000009fa81
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x600000000006f9b5, ip=0x200000000009fa81
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x600000000008f347, ip=0x200000000009fa81
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x600000000066764b, ip=0x200000000009fa81
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x6000000000667425, ip=0x200000000009fa81
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x6000000000666e75, ip=0x200000000009fa81
fc-list(21085): unaligned access to 0x60000000006652ad, ip=0x200000000009fa81
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/truetype/FZHeiTi.ttf: :index=0

real    0m34.704s
user    0m29.628s
sys     0m0.540s
Comment 1 Andreas Schwab 2005-11-15 13:47:33 UTC 
In 10.0 it took less than half a second.
Comment 2 Stefan Dirsch 2005-11-15 14:09:58 UTC 
Coolo wants to debug all fontconfig 2.3.9x related bugs and regressions. I still strongly vote to go back to 2.3.2 for 10.1.
Comment 3 Stephan Kulow 2005-11-15 14:16:17 UTC 
noted. The above command takes 0.016s here. I'd go for WORKSFORME
Comment 4 Andreas Schwab 2005-11-15 14:24:49 UTC 
Try installing more fonts.
Comment 5 Andreas Schwab 2005-11-15 23:42:27 UTC 
That thing can't deal with a page size bigger than 8k.  What a stupid design.
Comment 6 Andreas Schwab 2005-11-16 10:58:55 UTC 
Coolo, your "fix" is completely broken, you don't understand the bug.
Comment 7 Stephan Kulow 2005-11-16 11:41:16 UTC 
I do understand it.
Comment 8 Andreas Schwab 2005-11-17 12:46:34 UTC 
You are right, I have now found my thinko.  But there is still a bug when writing multiple architectures in the same cache.  Also, having multiple caches in one file means that the other caches may become stale when one architecture is added or updated, since the mtime is updated.  This can be a problem even with caches in system directories when multiple page size are supported on the same architecture.