[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinZkiy-EMdiJhOu1J2RfO8xDU5OXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:48:32 -0700
From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flex_array: Avoid divisions when accessing elements.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 13:41 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On most architectures division is an expensive operation and
>> accessing an element currently requires four of them. This
>> performance penalty effectively precludes flex arrays from
>> being used on any kind of fast path. However, two of these
>> divisions can be handled at creation time and the others can
>> be replaced by a reciprocal divide, completely avoiding real
>> divisions on access.
>
> flex_array.c has a nice table for how many objects can be allocated:
>
> * Element size | Objects | Objects |
> * PAGE_SIZE=4k | 32-bit | 64-bit |
> * ---------------------------------|
> * 1 bytes | 4186112 | 2093056 |
> * 2 bytes | 2093056 | 1046528 |
> * 3 bytes | 1395030 | 697515 |
> * 4 bytes | 1046528 | 523264 |
> * 32 bytes | 130816 | 65408 |
> * 33 bytes | 126728 | 63364 |
> * 2048 bytes | 2044 | 1022 |
> * 2049 bytes | 1022 | 511 |
> * void * | 1046528 | 261632 |
>
> This patch changes that a bit. Would you mind updating it?
Sure, I'll send out an updated patch that does that tomorrow.
--
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