Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/16] Optimize this_cpu_*() ops for non-x86 (ARM64 for this series)
"David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/5/26 00:01, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2026, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >>> >>> You cannot accept that one instruction is faster than the same >>> instruction prefixed with another and something else at its tail? >> >> I am pretty sure that you got exactly what I meant, you likely just don't have >> the data to back it up. >> >> Proof me wrong! > > Well you seem to have alrady seen the benchmarks that we ran and are > running. So I had doubts on your sincerety with this comment. Seemes to be > be just there for effect. Let me repeat a third time: So to be clear: claiming that the additional instructions are unacceptable I'd expect something minimal like: "removing these 3 instructions speeds up micro-benchmark (a, b, c) by X% and macro-benchmarks (d, e, f) by Y% compared to Mark's approach". [1] [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] -- Cheers, David