On 11/30/05, Ananiev, Leonid I <[email protected]> wrote:
> Christoph,
> During that function calls 3 memory ridings are performed under
> spin_lock and having cache miss/conflict problem;
> and 2 only main memory ridings after patching.
>
> In a source a[b][c][d](arg);
> after patching number of memory ridings less by 1:
> a[c][d](arg);
> Do you agree with it?
> Have you other explanation of performance degradation 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10?
>
> Leonid
>
Leonid, you are "just" removing a memory fetch by embeding the struct
instead of pointing to it, not removing a whole indirect jump...
granted it's good to remove innecesary mem-fetchs, but then please
call the patch that, a removal of not-necessary mem-fetches.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:26 PM
> To: Ananiev, Leonid I
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] elevator: indirect function calls reducing
>
>
> this _still_ isn't an indirect function call reduction and people
> have told you N times. Please get your basics right first, to start
> with the patch description.
> -
> 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/
>
--
Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network
http://wind.codepixel.com/
[email protected]
[email protected]
Every day, every year
you have to work
you have to study
you have to scene.
-
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]
