Re: do_softirq() newbie question...

• Next message: Richard Torkar: "Re: lm sensors and data corruption?"
• Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Ke: Process Capabilities on 2.2.16, Sendmail problem revisited"
• In reply to: J. Robert von Behren: "do_softirq() newbie question..."
• Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: do_softirq() newbie question..."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

"J. Robert von Behren" wrote:
> My other question is w/ regard to coding style in schedule.c. I noticed
> that schedule() has a large number of constructs like this:
>
> if(condition)
> goto label;
> label_back:
>
> ....
>
> label: do_stuff()
> goto label_back;
>
> I'm probably showing my naivette as a C hacker, but why the gotos
> instead of just inline functions?

Because the scheduler is performance critical, the effort was made to
force GCC to move the uncommon code out of line (inline is bad in this
case). This improves the caching for the common case.

--
				Brian Gerst
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Richard Torkar: "Re: lm sensors and data corruption?"
• Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Ke: Process Capabilities on 2.2.16, Sendmail problem revisited"
• In reply to: J. Robert von Behren: "do_softirq() newbie question..."
• Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: do_softirq() newbie question..."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:28 EST