Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> While I agree with your reasoning, since you are affecting very hot
>
>code path for every architecture, irrespective of "bdev" support
>for this - you may want to look into some how eliminating few
>function pointer de-refs and checks for those who don't care.
>(#ifdef, unlikely(), or some arch & config magic).
>
>
I do agree that addidional pointer derefs would be a nightmare
from the performance perspective. But afaics the patch does not
add such, and for checks I did already add likeleyness for the non-xip
case. Could you be more precise and specify which code path(es) you
mean?
>To be honest, that file is already complicated enough - every time
>I look at it my head hurts :(
>
>
I agree on that one. I gonna put extra functions into its own file.
-
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/
[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]
