On Thu, 5 May 2011, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> David Gilbert <david.gilb...@linaro.org> writes:
>
> >> The memcpy case is not interesting. Not at all. Most kernel memcpy
> >> calls are for small size copies. The large copy instances are just bad
> >> and misdesigned in the first place if they rely on memcpy (maybe they
> >> should simply have a custom copy function, maybe implemented with Neon).
> >
> > Even outside the kernel vast memcpy's are fairly rare as far as I can
> > tell - everyone knows they're going to hurt so people try and avoid
> > them;
>
> If only that were true. I have long since lost count of the times I
> have (in vain) told people to lose the mempcys in order to improve
> performance.
Keep on doing it. No amount of memcpy optimization will ever beat the
performances of zero copy.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
