Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:58:25 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: rwatson@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/arm/conf NSLU Message-ID: <20080908.185825.63051686.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809080923260.88186@fledge.watson.org> References: <200809080041.m880flYK021067@repoman.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809080923260.88186@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809080923260.88186@fledge.watson.org>
Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes:
:
: On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Warner Losh wrote:
:
: > Commit the no-brainer parts of my space saving kernel experiments. We
: > don't inline the locking primitives, and only grab those parts of mii
: > that we really need. Other space optimizations are too agressive for
: > the generic file (removing all of usb, and loading it as kernel
: > modules).
:
: It's been a few years since we selected defaults on lock inlining (and other
: optional parameters), and it might well be time to re-evaluate our defaults.
: Cache footprint on code continues to play a significant role in performance,
: the trade-offs for function invocation have changed quite a bit over the
: years. A more thorough performance analysis of lock inlining is probably
: overdue for all platforms, not just small embedded ones.
Agreed. I don't know if it is faster on the embedded platforms, but
it makes such a huge space difference as to be well worth it...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080908.185825.63051686.imp>