Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 21:39 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> 
> I don't think you've proved your case here.  Do you *know* there are 
> extra cache misses (ie, measuring them), or is it just your theory to 
> explain a performance regression?
> 

I have measured the cache miss with tool.  So it is not just my theory.

Tim
-
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: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
    • From: Tim Chen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
    • From: Tim Chen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/12] i386: Force section size to be non-zero to prevent a symbol becoming absolute
• Next by Date: Re: [git patches] libata updates
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]