> Inlining everything did speed things up a bit, but I still didn't reach > the same speed I achieved using the patch set. However I did notice the > resulting swiotlb code was considerably larger.
Thanks. So your patch makes sense, but imho should pursue the inlining in parallel for other call sites. > assembly, is replaced with 8 lines of assembly and becomes inline. In > addition we drop the number of calls to __phys_addr from 9 to 2 by > dropping them all from swiotlb. By my math I am probably saving about > 120 instructions per packet. I suspect all of that would probably be > cutting the number of instructions per packet enough to probably account > for a 5% difference when you consider I am running at about 1.5Mpps per > core on a 2.7Ghz processor. Maybe it's just me, but that's somehow sad for one if() and a su btraction BTW __pa used to be a simple subtraction, the if () was just added to handle the few call sites for x86-64 that do __pa(&text_symbol). Maybe we should just go back to the old __pa_symbol() for those cases, then __pa could be the simple subtraction it used to was again and it could be inlined and everyone would be happy. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
