[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28665.1165234964@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:22:44 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> the question is: which is more important, the type safety of a
> container_of() [or type cast], which if we get it wrong produces a
> /very/ trivial crash that is trivial to fix - or embedded timers data
> structure size all around the kernel? I believe the latter is more
> important.
Indeed yes.
Using container_of() and ditching the data value, you generally have to have
one extra instruction per timer handler, if that, but you are able to discard
one instruction or more from __run_timers() and struct timer_list discards a
word.
You will almost certainly have far more timer_list structs in the kernel than
timer handler functions, therefore it's a space win, and possibly also a time
win (if the reduction of __run_timers() is greater than the increase in the
timer handler).
And that extra instruction in the timer handler is usually going to be an
addition or subtraction of a small immediate value - which may be zero (in
which case the insn is dropped) or which may be folded directly into memory
access instruction offsets.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists