From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49691) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZJyxj-0002kQ-CX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 03:06:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZJyxg-00076X-6m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 03:06:07 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]:34348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZJyxg-00076T-0K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 03:06:04 -0400 Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so167623399wib.1 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <507c11db2c97eef33de0e4f7168076d5c39f0867.1436866326.git.p.fedin@samsung.com> <87r3ntzra9.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <003201d0c879$8fced800$af6c8800$@samsung.com> <55B646CD.8010808@suse.de> <55B64900.6020008@redhat.com> <007201d0c87f$9b3e5660$d1bb0320$@samsung.com> <55B64CC2.6000307@redhat.com> <00a901d0c900$faa98120$effc8360$@samsung.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <55B729DA.3000501@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:06:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <00a901d0c900$faa98120$effc8360$@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/2] QOM: object_property_add() performance improvement List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Pavel Fedin , =?UTF-8?Q?'Andreas_F=c3=a4rber'?= , 'Markus Armbruster' Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 28/07/2015 08:45, Pavel Fedin wrote: > I can try to reengineer this and see what happens. If it works fine, will such rework be accepted? [*] expansion would still be slow, but we could deprecate it. > > I have just done a search of "[*]" across all *.c files, and here is what i came up with: > 1. memory_region_init() > 2. xlnx_zynqmp_init() > 3. qdev_init_gpio_in_named() > 4. qdev_init_gpio_out_named() > 5. qdev_connect_gpio_out_named() > 6. spapr_dr_connector_new() > > Cases 2, 3, 4 can be reengineered for sure. The rest - i don't know, however perhaps they are not common cases. I think (1) could also be problematic. How many regions with the same name can we have? Just worry about 3 and 4, they are the big offenders. Paolo