lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/10] jump label v11: base patch
> I agree with Steven, Peter and Jason: due to the large amount of
> tracepoints we can end up patching, we should keep the hash tables. This

I suspect when it's cache cold the hash tables will be actually slower.
As a general rule memory bloat = slow.

> code is very similar to what I have in the tracepoints already and in
> the immediate values. So this code is solid and has been tested over a
> large user base for quite some time already.

FWIW "We always did it this way" is not a good argument
in engineering discussions.

> One change I would recommend is to use a separate memory pool to
> allocate the struct jump_label_entry, to favor better locality. I did
> not do it in tracepoints and markers because each entry have a variable
> length, but given that struct jump_label_entry seems to be fixed-size,
> then we should definitely go for a kmem_cache_alloc().

Yes even more complexity, great idea.

-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-21 21:51    [W:0.108 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site