Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:09:23 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com>, jlemon@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kernel size w/ optimized bzero() & patch set (was Re: Inline optimized bzero (was Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinettcp_subr.c)) Message-ID: <20010625220923.A27901@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <200106251233.f5PCXc306427@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:33:38AM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106252337370.7918-100000@besplex.bde.org> <200106251233.f5PCXc306427@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:33:38AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote: > And my earlier assessment was wrong. 800+ bzero()'s, a difference of > 128 bytes in the kernel, results in an average of 0.16 additional > instructions bytes per bzero, not 1 byte per bzero. I think this is > quite acceptable considering the positive effect. BTW - I have patches for a load of places in which M_ZERO could be used. It seems that the firrst patch only got about half the instances. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010625220923.A27901>