Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:46:17 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Mike Haertel <mike@ducky.net>, Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, dfr@nlsystems.com, jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "objtrm" problem probably found (was Re: Stuck in "objtrm") Message-ID: <199907130246.TAA03519@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:38:43 PDT." <199907130238.TAA73524@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > : > :> Although function calls are more expensive than inline code, > :> they aren't necessarily a lot more so, and function calls to > :> non-locked RMW operations are certainly much cheaper than > :> inline locked RMW operations. > : > :This is a fairly key statement in context, and an opinion here would > :count for a lot; are function calls likely to become more or less > :expensive in time? ... > The change in code flow used to be the expensive piece, but not any > more. You typically either see a branch prediction cache (Intel) > offering a best-case of 0-cycle latency, or a single-cycle latency > that is slot-fillable (MIPS). I assumed too much in asking the question; I was specifically interested in indirect function calls, since this has a direct impact on method-style implementations. -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907130246.TAA03519>