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