Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752921Ab0DVG0X (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:26:23 -0400 Received: from vpn.id2.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:47924 "EHLO vpn.id2.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752818Ab0DVG0W convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:26:22 -0400 Message-Id: <4BCFFA1B020000780005CBAE@vpn.id2.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 8.0.1 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:26:19 +0100 From: "Jan Beulich" To: Cc: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce and use percpu_inc() Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 978 Lines: 27 >>> "H. Peter Anvin" 04/21/10 7:57 PM >>> >On 04/21/2010 07:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> ... generating slightly smaller code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > >How much smaller? The percpu_add(..., 1) -> percpu_inc() conversion is just a single byte reduction (the immediate operand of the add); the other one (where percpu_...() wasn't even used) is certainly a bigger win (most of which obviously could also be achieved using percpu_add()). >Keep in mind that although INC is smaller than ADD, >the former has flag dependencies that the latter doesn't... Wasn't that a problem just on Pentium4-s, which when I submitted another related patch a couple of months back I was told would not be a primary target anymore? Jan -- 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/