From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 17 12:23:24 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F0E37B401 for ; Sat, 17 May 2003 12:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E432A43FCB for ; Sat, 17 May 2003 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (athlon.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.3]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4HJNNwk084210; Sat, 17 May 2003 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4HJNNZA000627; Sat, 17 May 2003 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4HJNN8D000626; Sat, 17 May 2003 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 12:23:23 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20030517192323.GA539@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030516184626.GB537@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <5634.1053191680@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5634.1053191680@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optimizations. X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 19:23:25 -0000 On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 07:14:40PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20030516184626.GB537@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>, Marcel Moolenaar writes > : > >On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:59:52AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> > >> >That's right:) > >> >Look at functions in /sys/kern/kern_tc.c. There are so many little > >> >functions. How about put __inline here and there? > >> > >> Try it, and you'll find that things get slower because the code > >> gets bigger. > > > >Observed on what architecture? > > i386, but it takes a _lot_ to get a stddev on your measurements > which allow you to measure this in real-world applications. Some are called from hardclock so I can imagine that if inlining has a positive effect, the effects are generally more indirect. I expect that (selective) inlining could make a difference on ia64. There's hardly any ILP now. It's also not important now :-) -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net