Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 12:23:23 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optimizations. Message-ID: <20030517192323.GA539@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <5634.1053191680@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20030516184626.GB537@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <5634.1053191680@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030517192323.GA539>