Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031027AbXEDQFg (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 12:05:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031035AbXEDQFf (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 12:05:35 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:53395 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031039AbXEDQFe (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 12:05:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 09:05:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: William Lee Irwin III cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Remove constructor from buffer_head In-Reply-To: <20070504063534.GX19966@holomorphy.com> Message-ID: References: <20070504063534.GX19966@holomorphy.com> 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: 863 Lines: 20 On Thu, 3 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Performance tests show a slight improvements in netperf (not a > > strong case for a performance improvement but removing the > > constructor has definitely no negative impact so why keep > > this around?). > > Cache effects are not so easily visible. Cache profile results from > more realistic workloads (e.g. major macrobenchmarks) are more > appropriate for gauging this. Yeah I really out to stick a performance counter in this but that would require some effort. Defer for now I guess. - 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/