Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 16:03:16 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: inlining (Was: users of "ft" tapes...) Message-ID: <199611282103.QAA03782@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199611282005.VAA16339@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Nov 28, 96 09:05:02 pm
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> As Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >I have been thinking about un-inlining spls. This saves 29K out of > > >1096K text. It may even save some time > > > I generally use the rule of thumb that unless the text-size is > > smaller as a result, then inlining is wrong. > > This is hard to achieve. I think inlining is first aimed at > optimizing for speed, not for size. > Sometimes speed == size. Esp, on Intel architectures with small caches. I would like to know if there is going to be an impact on VM perf (which is much of what people see as perf on a machine, running various programs, and one reason why NT is so dog slow), before un-inlining the spl's. If it is neutral (and that is very likely), I would be for de-inlining also. Note that we actually had a net microbenchmark slowdown with some of my recent VM changes, but that had to be weighed against a speedup on large systems (by 2x-3x.) Most of the slowdown is probably due to the larger data structures (and larger cache footprint.) Alas, I am just not able to figure out how to make some of those damned things smaller, but if anyone does have any ideas, PLEASE PLEASE let me know. Johnhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611282103.QAA03782>