In message <20020611.021043.04190747.davem@redhat.com> you write:
> From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:09:44 +1000
>
> In message <3D05A9E8.FF0DA223@zip.com.au> you write:
> > and slowdown:
>
> ARGH! STOP IT! I realize it's 'leet to be continually worrying about
> possible microoptimizations, but I challenge you to *measure* the
> slowdown between:
>
> Regardless, his space arguments still hold.
You can allocate based on cpu_possible(cpu) (which is in the
next patch) if you like, but I think you're better off fixing the
existing NR_CPUS bloat as well, and keeping all the code simple.
> I don't like having everyone eat the overhead that hotplugging cpus
> seem to entail.
But there's an important difference between something which is
simple and unoptimized, and something which is unoptimizable.
> And remember, it's the anal "every microoptimization at all costs"
> people that keep the kernel sane and from running out of control bloat
> wise.
But it also gave us crap like net/ipv4/route.c:ip_rt_acct_read() 8(
I know *you* benchmark and read the asm during optimization, but it's
quite clear that others are so scared of "bloat" criticism that they
optimize without measuring the straightforward case *first*.
Remember, to be cool:
1) Use bitops and memory barriers not spinlocks,
2) Use inlines everywhere,
3) Use likely()/unlikely() on every branch
4) Use prefetch() everywhere,
5) Use gotos to minimize the path length
6) __set_current_state() not set_current_state()
7) Pass in current as a function param
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:24 EST