From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.0.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out2.migadu.com (out2.migadu.com [IPv6:2001:41d0:2:aacc::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACCAC1F934 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:45:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kyleam.com; s=key1; t=1618152319; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xiDcKDDkR2TMPa1g+4PmJJCcjKnkkKVc+G3xKepNELA=; b=lD9ZUaBswKJy8BWCGUniVvYjQQQeBUOg6gpaYoEgrI7tK8TSIg3uoDJ/NPiry50V5ONB08 VI7LovyNlC0v0zlJgBVvxj63M+b8wDldIALlytFj3BeNLeSSKYZaQT3S3oEu/4U3/6hMaY CMWtJEzoxj3XeQS197F40tKr/RbvhF7+Bm+hTh8wkiSjeo+q3e1OjUJKU2T/wBvTIaN8Hd OoRn4ydwTC1mjCaJ721Sqp3++kHeP34L5U/vCb1n/BRUqNPkB6oD7nxFla1MNMVmLy0Fen LxcwcLxEqD6IVF/+EOXX+cvg5KO7/C9Cmb4DiBkZpo2cM4rsg1pGKs0IuxJEGg== From: Kyle Meyer To: Eric Wong Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] www: do not obfuscate addresses in URLs In-Reply-To: <20210411053255.GA9477@dcvr> References: <87a6q8p5qa.fsf@kyleam.com> <20210409102129.GA16787@dcvr> <87zgy7rs9q.fsf@kyleam.com> <20210409233700.GA11190@dcvr> <87sg3ysrzu.fsf@kyleam.com> <20210410051550.GA4654@dcvr> <87wnt9or6t.fsf@kyleam.com> <20210411053255.GA9477@dcvr> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:45:16 -0400 Message-ID: <877dl87udf.fsf@kyleam.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: kyle@kyleam.com List-Id: Eric Wong writes: > Kyle Meyer wrote: >> | obfuscate | run | wall | usr | sys | >> |-------------+-----+------+--------+------| >> | no | 1 | 50 | 49.14 | 0.57 | >> | no | 2 | 49 | 47.76 | 0.58 | >> | | | | | | >> | yes, master | 1 | 56 | 54.47 | 0.58 | >> | yes, master | 2 | 55 | 54.24 | 0.58 | >> | | | | | | >> | yes, patch | 1 | 175 | 174.71 | 0.52 | >> | yes, patch | 2 | 176 | 174.33 | 0.56 | > > Wow, that's horribly slow. Probably not pathological, but still > bad. Yeah. The difference was big enough that I was getting ready to kill the run and say "dunno, much longer" (or, rather, try with fewer messages) :) > The following might be slightly faster (or roughly the > same, hard to tell due to system noise). > > -------------8<------------ > Subject: [PATCH] www: do not obfuscate addresses in URLs Looking good on my end too: (54.53 usr + 0.47 sys = 55.00 CPU) @ 0.02/s (n=1) for 135885 <=> 135885 messages Thanks.