Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote: > > For me, it made a 4970 byte difference in code size. > That's about the same saving as uninlining first_cpu() and next_cpu() provides. Anything which iterates across multiple CPUs is cachemiss heaven - I doubt if this is performance-critical code. Or at least if it is, we have bigger problems.. - 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: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- References:
- OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Parag Warudkar <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH]use kzalloc in vfs where appropriate
- Next by Date: Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- Previous by thread: Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- Next by thread: Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative
- Index(es):