Re: More on bigger kdev_t

Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@pobox.com)
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:35:37 -0400

Martin Dalecki wrote:
> I have tryed the direct approach to kdev_t several years ago out.
> The lost in speed caused by introducing the strcut was really noticable
> in the overall device system's performance.
>
> It was about scary several percents. Sorry I'm not quite
> sure if my memmory leaves me, but it was about as much as 3% on a
> 486/66MHz (Yes It was that long ago...)
> And this after only folding the arrays indexed by MINOR(dev) into a
> single
> array of corresponding structs.

Just to be clear, you replaced kdev_t with a struct, or a ptr to a
struct?

And what did you do with the arrays indexed by MINOR(dev)? Andries
pointed out that a linear search for a major/minor could be ugly and
slow, potentially causing the slowdown you mention.

Regards,

Jeff

-- 
Custom driver development	|    Never worry about theory as long
Open source programming		|    as the machinery does what it's
				|    supposed to do.  -- R. A. Heinlein


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