On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:52:14 +0200 Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Seems to work, more or less. I now see ~6.5 seconds which is slower than > it was, and in particular comparing to just a revert (which was ~2 > seconds), but it's usable :-) I'm totally confused. Unless it is a cache miss thing, the only thing it did was add two branches that should basically follow the old path with the revert. Can you run perf comparing this patch against the revert and see where the difference lies? Thanks! -- Steve
|