lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PPC64 iSeries: cleanup viopath
From
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:53:39AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell was heard to remark:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:27 -0600 Hollis Blanchard <hollis@penguinppc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Why not use a byte instead of a full int (reordering the members for
> > alignment)?
>
> Because "classical" boleans are ints.
>
> Because I don't know the relative speed of accessing single byte variables.
>
> Because it was easy.
>
> Because we only allocate 32 of these structures. Changing them really
> only adds four bytes per structure. I guess using bytes and rearranging
> the structure could actually save 4 bytes per structure.

FWIW, keep in mind that a cache miss due to large structures not fitting
is a zillion times more expensive than byte-aligning in the cpu
(even if byte operands had a cpu perf overhead, which I don't think
they do on ppc).

> It really makes little difference,

Yep. So my apologies for making you read this email.

--linas

-
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: 2005-03-22 14:11    [W:0.082 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site