Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/

On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 17:29 -0500, linux-os wrote:
> Isn't it expensive of CPU time to call kfree() even though the
> pointer may have already been freed? 

nope

a call instruction is effectively half a cycle or less, the branch
predictor of the cpu can predict perfectly where the next instruction is
from. The extra if() you do in front is a different matter, that can
easily cost 100 cycles+. (And those are redundant cycles because kfree
will do the if again anyway). So what you propose is to spend 100+
cycles to save half a cycle. Not a good tradeoff ;)

-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() -fs/ext2/
    • From: linux-os <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/
    • From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/
    • From: linux-os <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] mm: thrashing control cleanups
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.12-rc1-bk1: Inconsistent kallsyms data
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() - fs/ext2/
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] no need to check for NULL before calling kfree() -fs/ext2/
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]