lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: kernel optimization
From
Date
On Sad, 2005-07-23 at 02:30 -0400, cutaway@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Larger does not always mean slower. If it did, nobody would implement a
> loop unrolling optimization.

Generally speaking nowdays it does. Almost all loop unrolls are a loss
on PIV.

> ex. Look at how GCC generates jump tables for switch() when there's about
> 10-12 (or more) case's sparsely scattered in the rage from 0 through 255.

You are comparing with very expensive jump operations its an unusual
case. For the majority of situations the TLB/cache overhead of misses
vastly outweighs the odd clock cycle gained by verbose output.


-
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: 2005-07-23 21:33    [W:0.078 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site