Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759295AbXHVKDR (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:03:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753137AbXHVKDI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:03:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55152 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752476AbXHVKDF (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:03:05 -0400 To: "lode leroy" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] memchr (trivial) optimization References: From: Andi Kleen Date: 22 Aug 2007 12:56:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 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: 614 Lines: 11 "lode leroy" writes: > While profiling something completely unrelated, I noticed > that on the workloads I used memchr for, I saw a 30%-40% improvement > in performance, with the following trivial changes... > (basically, it saves 3 operations for each call) What kind of workload? I didn't think anything in tree was memchr intensive. -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/