Messages in this thread | | | Date | 17 Mar 2004 01:01:24 +0100 | Date | Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:01:23 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Driver Core update for 2.6.4 |
| |
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@osdl.org> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |