[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150319221021.GT2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:10:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, oleg@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] rbtree: Implement generic latch_tree
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:58:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:25:02 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:14:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:36:32 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > include/linux/rbtree_latch.h | 223 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > Did it really need to all be inlined?
> >
> > Without that you get actual function calls to the less() and comp()
> > operators. This way GCC can inline the lot even though its function
> > pointers.
> >
> > The typical RB tree user open-codes all this every single time.
>
> Is it a good tradeoff?
Is what? Writing it like this or open-coding it all?
For many archs (indirect) function calls are far more expensive than the
typical comparison.
--
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