[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150517073008.GA6571@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 09:30:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86: Pack function addresses tightly as well
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> The median function size is around 1 cacheline (64-byte one), ~80%
> fitting into two cachelines, with a big peak for very small
> functions that make up something like 20% of all functions [...]
Correction:
32% of kernel functions fit into a single cacheline,
55% fit into two cachelines,
70% into three cachelines,
76% into four cachelines
so the tail is longer than my quick read of the graph suggested.
OTOH, probability of use is biased towards smaller functions: we tend
to use smaller, facility functions more frequently.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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