From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:55:27 +0300 From: Matti Aarnio Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize away pte_chains for single mappings Message-ID: <20020715195527.X28720@mea-ext.zmailer.org> References: <55160000.1026239746@baldur.austin.ibm.com> <20020715184016.W28720@mea-ext.zmailer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from phillips@arcor.de on Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 06:30:43PM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Linux Memory Management List-ID: On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 06:30:43PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Monday 15 July 2002 17:40, Matti Aarnio wrote: > > In register-lacking i386 this masking is definite punishment.. > > Nonsense, the value needs to be loaded into a register anyway > before being used. Think in assembly, what is needed in i386 to mask the pointer ? How the pointer is then used ? How many register you need ? What registers can be used for masking arithmetics, and which are usable in indexed memory reference address calculation ? Linus seems to care about this kind of speed things, and at least DaveM does look into gcc generated assembly to verify, that used C idioms are compiled correctly and fast. > Daniel /Matti Aarnio -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/