From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Andreas Mohr <andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
bert hubert <bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, george@mvista.com
Subject: Re: gettimeofday order of magnitude slower with pmtimer, which is default
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:07:59 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603212308.00645.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1142942684.3077.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 23:04, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 22:58 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 March 2006 19:53, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > > (and the fact that invoking a function pointer should be similarly
> > > expensive to a conditional) I don't think it's useful.
> >
> > Is
> >
> > *blah();
> >
> > as expensive as
> >
> > if (conditional)
> > blah();
> >
> > I don't know the answer. I just know cmp is expensive. Comments?
>
> function pointer is usually MORE expensive.
> for if() the processor has a change to predict the branch right, while
> call <register> (which is what function pointer calls end up being) are
> basically always mispredicted unless you have a really really fancy
> branch predictor...
Thanks! That's something I've been trying to find good info on.
Cheers,
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-21 12:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-20 12:24 gettimeofday order of magnitude slower with pmtimer, which is default bert hubert
2006-03-20 14:50 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-20 15:24 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 1:26 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-21 0:40 ` kernel
2006-03-21 2:59 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-21 3:09 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 8:53 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-21 9:06 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-03-21 11:58 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-21 12:04 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-03-21 12:07 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2006-03-21 19:23 ` john stultz
2006-03-21 21:19 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-22 0:21 ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-22 18:49 ` [PATCH] PM-Timer: doesn't use workaround if chipset is not buggy OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-22 21:46 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-23 7:31 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-23 7:49 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-23 17:04 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-23 18:21 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-30 11:53 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-30 15:37 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-30 16:02 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-25 12:00 ` bert hubert
2006-03-22 19:12 ` gettimeofday order of magnitude slower with pmtimer, which is default Avi Kivity
2006-03-22 19:54 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2006-03-22 20:05 ` john stultz
2006-03-21 19:34 ` john stultz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-03-21 5:33 Albert Cahalan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200603212308.00645.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.