[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aA-A5ERYLP7r5zK7@yury>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 09:21:40 -0400
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rong Xu <xur@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] rust: add find_bit_benchmark_rust module.
> By the way, if you add assert_eq!(bitmap.len(), BITMAP_LEN) before the
> loop you may get the bounds checks optimized out.
That sounds cheating, isn't?
I think nobody will reject this series because of +15% in performance
test, neither +25%, or whatever reasonable number.
Let's just measure fair numbers and deliver clear maintainable code.
There's a single user for bitmaps in rust so far, and it's you. So
you're to call if performance is bad for you, not me. I just want
to make sure that your numbers are withing the sane boundaries.
Thanks,
Yury
Powered by blists - more mailing lists