On 05/30/10 13:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:54AM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> It looks pretty good to me, however one thing I have been thinking of >> while reading through it: >> >> Rather than storing a pointer within the ring struct, pointing into a >> position within the same struct. How about storing a byte offset instead >> and using a cast to get to the pointer position? That would avoid the >> pointer dereference, which is less effective cache wise and harder for >> the CPU to predict. >> >> Not sure whether it really matters performance wise, just a thought. > > I think this won't work: when PUBLUSH_USED_IDX is negotiated, > the pointer is to within the ring. Hmmm shame, it would be a nice optimization. Maybe it's time to introduce the v2 ring format, rather than having adding more kludges to the existing one? Cheers, Jes _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
