Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264107AbUDVPAM (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:00:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264106AbUDVPAL (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:00:11 -0400 Received: from zero.aec.at ([193.170.194.10]:59403 "EHLO zero.aec.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264107AbUDVPAG (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:00:06 -0400 To: James Morris cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua Subject: Re: Large inlines in include/linux/skbuff.h References: <1NvJL-1QO-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <1NAJr-61F-3@gated-at.bofh.it> From: Andi Kleen Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:59:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1NAJr-61F-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (James Morris's message of "Thu, 22 Apr 2004 03:00:09 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 904 Lines: 23 James Morris writes: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > >> What shall be done with this? I'll make patch to move locking functions >> into net/core/skbuff.c unless there is some reason not to do it. > > How will these changes impact performance? I asked this last time you > posted about inlines and didn't see any response. I don't think it will be an issue. The optimization guidelines of AMD and Intel recommend to move functions that generate more than 30-40 instructions out of line. 100 instructions is certainly enough to amortize the call overhead, and you safe some icache too so it may be even faster. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/