Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 05:12:58PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> > Well, kfree inlined was already mentioned but forgotten again.
> > What if this was used:
> >
> > inline static void kfree_WRAP(void *addr) {
> > if(likely(addr != NULL)) {
> > kfree_real(addr);
> > }
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > And remove the NULL-test in kfree_real()? Then we would have:
> Am I the only person who is completely fascinated by the
> effort being spent here micro-optimising something thats
> almost never in a path that needs optimising ?
> I'd be amazed if any of this masturbation showed the tiniest
> blip on a real workload, or even on a benchmark other than
> one crafted specifically to test kfree in a loop.
Right.
> That each occurance of this 'optimisation' also saves a handful
> of bytes in generated code is it's only real benefit afaics.
No. It clears up the calls to kfree() a bit too in the source. Not really
important, sure.
.
> Even then, if a functions cache performance is better off because
> we trimmed a few bytes from the tail of a function, I'd be
> completely amazed.
>
> I guess April 1st came early this year.
Got (at) you! ;-)
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
