On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:02:33AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:16 -0400 (EDT)
> 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further
> impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of
> magnitude slower than current desktop machines.
> I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure
> call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to
> touch a device?
I think the key phrase is 'further impact'.
If anything, the procedure call increases latency.
Although... I don't see why CONFIG_TINY wouldn't be able to decide whether
inb() should be inlined or not...
mark
-- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaOne ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:59 EST