From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964825AbWBMTwi (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:52:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964827AbWBMTwi (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:52:38 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:11401 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964825AbWBMTwh (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:52:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:50:52 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] hrtimer: optimize hrtimer_run_queues Message-ID: <20060213195052.GA30679@elte.hu> References: <20060213133944.GA12923@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.2 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.2 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Roman Zippel wrote: > > hm, we can do this - although the open-coded loop looks ugly. In any > > case, this is an optimization, and not necessary for v2.6.16. It is > > certainly ok for -mm. > > I could also call this perfomance regressions to 2.6.15, unless there > is a good reason not to include them, I'd prefer to see it in 2.6.16. can you measure it? This is tricky code, we definitely dont want to change it this late in the v2.6.16 cycles, execpt if it's some measurable performance issue that users will see. (or if it's some regression, which it isnt.) Ingo