Re: [PATCH] Driver Core update for 2.6.4

[Andi Kleen]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:40:39AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 05:14:47PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > eh?  If there is any argument against this code it is that it is so simple
> > > that the thing which it abstracts is not worth abstracting.  But given that
> > > it is so unwasteful, this seems unimportant.
> > 
> > The bloat argument was about the additional pointer in the dynamic 
> > data structure (on a 64bit architecture it costs 12 bytes) 
> 
> Well balance that out against every usb driver re-implemeting the same
> get/put logic with an atomic counter and that "bloat of a pointer" just

Yes, all those one and two liners duplicated ... scary.

> got lost in the noise of the extra kernel code size increase :)

Have you ever looked how many instructions 
	
	if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&foo->ref))
		release(foo) 

generated? Code size makes no difference here at all.

Dynamic object bloat is much worse than code bloat anyways because you
can have thousands of these objects.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/