> Here's a hint: the cost of a cache miss is generally about a hundred times 
100 times seems quite optimistic %)
>

quoted text
> No, zlib isn't perfect, and nope, inflate_fast() is no "memcpy()". And

> yes, I'm sure a pure memcpy would be much faster. But I seriously suspect

> that a lot of the cost is literally in bringing in the source data to the

> CPU. Because we just mmap() the whole pack-file, the first access to the

> data is going to see the cost of the cache misses.

I would have thought that zlib has a sequential access pattern that the

CPU prefetchers have a easy time with hiding latency.
BTW I always wonder why people reason about cache misses in oprofile

logs without actually using the cache miss counters.
-Andi
--

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in

the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html