lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] CHECK_IRQ_PER_CPU() to avoid dead code in __do_IRQ()
Karsten Wiese wrote:

>Am Montag, 8. August 2005 13:19 schrieb Alexander Nyberg:
>
>
>>There are many places where one could replace run-time tests with
>>#ifdef's but it makes reading more difficult (and in longer terms
>>maintainence). Have you benchmarked any workload that benefits
>>from this?
>>
>>
>
>Performance gain is small, but measurable: 0,02%
>Tested on an Atlon64 running at 1000MHz.
>I took this value from 9 runs (each with/without the patch) of
> $ time lame x.wav
>where each took about 1 minute.
>3000 Interrupts/s were generated at the time by running
> $ jackd -R -dalsa -p64 -n2
>
>0,02% really isn't that much....but Athlon64 is better than P4
>with branch predictions, I think.
>
>Erm... ok, I won't insist on having this patch applied ;-)
>
> Karsten
>
>

Removing dead code is always good - 0.02% is small, but if 100 kernel
developers all did the same, that adds up to 2% rather quickly, and that
is nothing to sneeze at. I like your patch, but you should add some
comments for maintainability about what CHECK_IRQ_PER_CPU does - see
include/asm-generic/pgtable.h for similar styling. If also probably
doesn't hurt to leave IRQ_PER_CPU defined even when
ARCH_HAS_CHECK_IRQ_PER_CPU is not, since it looks cleaner and prevents
future collisions with bits defined inside of an #ifdef.

Zach
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-08 17:54    [W:0.033 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site