On Mon, Sep 16 2024 at 22:20, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 11/09/2024 à 07:13, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
>
> not directly related to your serie, but some time ago I sent a patch to
> micro-optimize Optimize usleep_range(). (See [1])
>
> The idea is that the 2 parameters of usleep_range() are usually
> constants and some code reordering could easily let the compiler compute
> a few things at compilation time.
>
> There was consensus on the value of the change (see [2]), but as you are
> touching things here, maybe it makes sense now to save a few cycles at
> runtime and a few bytes of code?
For the price of yet another ugly interface and pushing the
multiplication into the non-constant call sites.
Seriously usleep() is not a hotpath operation and the multiplication is
not even measurable except in micro benchmarks.
Thanks,
tglx
