[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety
Ingo Molnar <> wrote:

> the question is: which is more important, the type safety of a
> container_of() [or type cast], which if we get it wrong produces a
> /very/ trivial crash that is trivial to fix - or embedded timers data
> structure size all around the kernel? I believe the latter is more
> important.

Indeed yes.

Using container_of() and ditching the data value, you generally have to have
one extra instruction per timer handler, if that, but you are able to discard
one instruction or more from __run_timers() and struct timer_list discards a

You will almost certainly have far more timer_list structs in the kernel than
timer handler functions, therefore it's a space win, and possibly also a time
win (if the reduction of __run_timers() is greater than the increase in the
timer handler).

And that extra instruction in the timer handler is usually going to be an
addition or subtraction of a small immediate value - which may be zero (in
which case the insn is dropped) or which may be folded directly into memory
access instruction offsets.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-12-04 13:27    [W:0.097 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site