Re: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 06:03:29PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >   6e:   38 08                   cmp    %cl,(%eax)
> >   70:   74 07                   je     79 <memchr3+0x1b>
> >   72:   40                      inc    %eax
> >   
> It's a bit gross that the compiler is using inc here rather than lea or
> add, but still...
> 
> Er, something's spending 30% of its time in memchr?  This is not the
> code to fix.

Indeed. I'm just pointing out the general optimization of walking
one counter instead of two.

Hmm, perhaps the culprit is validate_nla?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]>
  • Re: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization
    • From: Ingo Oeser <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization
    • From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Ideas on column length in kernel "problem"?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect_signal()
• Previous by thread: Re: [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]