On 04-10-2007 07:23, Nick Piggin wrote:... Great news! First it looks like a really great thing that it's revealed at last. But then... there is probably some confusion: did we have to use ineffective code for so long? First again, we could try to blame Intel etc. But then, wait a minute: is it such a mystery knowledge? If this reordering is done there are some easy rules broken (just like in examples from these manuals). And if somebody cared to do this for optimization, then this is probably noticeable optimization, let's say 5 or 10%. Then any test shouldn't need to take very long to tell the truth in less than 100 loops! So, maybe linux needs something like this, instead of waiting few years with each new model for vendors goodwill? IMHO, even for less popular processors, this could be checked under some debugging option at the system start (after disabling suspicios barrier for a while plus some WARN_ONs). Thanks, Jarek P. -
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Andrew Morton | 2.6.25-mm1 |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
