Re: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization

"lode leroy" <[email protected]> writes:

> While profiling something completely unrelated, I noticed
> that on the workloads I used memchr for, I saw a 30%-40% improvement
> in performance, with the following trivial changes...
> (basically, it saves 3 operations for each call)

What kind of workload? I didn't think anything in tree
was memchr intensive.

-Andi
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization
    • From: "lode leroy" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] do_sigaction: don't worry about signal_pending()
• Next by Date: Re: NFS hang + umount -f: better behaviour requested.
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization
• 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]