Hi James, [added [email protected] to Cc] On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 12:51:20PM -0400, James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > > capablities is used. These are not called via indirect calls but > > called as hardcoded calls and might thus be inlined; the price for > > this is a conditional -- benchmarks done by hp showed this to be > > beneficial (on ia64). > > What about on i386, x86_64 or ppc64? We tested on i386 as well at the time, and it looked like a tiny improvement. But doing the statistics, it was in the noise. I have no numbers for x86_64 or ppc64. If you have reason to believe that there could be regressions, we should indeed do the benchmarks. Sidenote: The patches 1 -- 2b alone still make sense, so I would vote not for delaying their inclusion until we can collect numbers for all arches we care about to take a decision on patch 3. Best, -- Kurt Garloff, Director SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Attachment:
pgpGChxbL9VJC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional
- From: Kurt Garloff <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional
- Prev by Date: [patch] fix u32 vs. pm_message_t confusion in cpufreq
- Next by Date: Re: [ANNOUNCE] ORT - Oops Reporting Tool v.b4
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional
- Index(es):
