netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [timers] net/core/*

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [timers] net/core/*
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 22:24:34 +0200
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <393573CD.DADE1A55@mandrakesoft.com>; from Jeff Garzik on Wed, May 31, 2000 at 10:19:37PM +0200
References: <39352AB3.7C609B8C@uow.edu.au> <200005311903.XAA23547@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20000531212143.64448@colin.muc.de> <393573CD.DADE1A55@mandrakesoft.com>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 10:19:37PM +0200, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > gcc 3.0 will fix this, with -freorder-blocks (which knows some common
> > heuristics like == NULL is usually not taken already) and __builtin_expect()
> > 
> > it'll allow exorcise of about a zillion gotos from the kernel tree.
> 
> I wish... :)   We'll still have to support gcc 2.7.2...

Not with the highest efficieny though. gcc 2.7.2 kernels will be most
likely slower than gcc 3.0 kernels (3.0 has a much better scheduler at least
on x86). Adding a few more cycles difference probably do not hurt -- 
especially when it makes the code easier to read and maintain.

-Andi

-- 
This is like TV. I don't like TV.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>