Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>On Middeweken 11 Mai 2005 18:19, Carsten Otte wrote:
>
>
>>Badari Pulavarty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>
>I guess what Badari means is that you could add a function like
>
>#ifdef CONFIG_FS_XIP
>static inline int mapping_has_xip(struct address_space *mapping)
>{
> return __unlikely(mapping->a_ops->get_xip_page != NULL);
>}
>#else
>#define mapping_has_xip(x) (0)
>#endif
>
>Using this in the hot path should result identical binary code to the
>current version as long as XIP is not enabled, while otherwise you
>need to access four data cache lines every time.
>
>I wouldn't expect much benefit from this since all these cache lines
>should be pretty hot and the branch gets predicted correctly anyway,
>but it surely doesn't hurt to do the abstraction.
>
> Arnd <><
>
>
Agreed. Will be changed in next version, thanks for clarification.
-
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]
