[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200702282009.29527.dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:09:29 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch - v3] epoll ready set loops diet ...
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 19:37, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> + list_del(&epi->rdllink);
> + if (!(epi->event.events & EPOLLET) && (revents & epi->event.events))
> + list_add_tail(&epi->rdllink, &injlist);
> + else {
Is the ( ... & epi->event.events) really necessary ? (It seems already done)
I was wrong about the size of epitem : it is now 68 bytes instead of 72.
At least we now use/dirty one cache line instead of two per epitem.
Do you have another brilliant idea to shrink 4 more bytes ? :)
It seems to me 'nwait' is only used at init time (so that
ep_ptable_queue_proc() can signal an error occured).
Maybe another mechanism could let us delete nwait from epitem ?
We could use a field in task_struct for example (see usage of total_link_count
for example)
Thank you
-
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