Subject: Re: copy performance
To: David Laight <email@example.com>
From: Richard Earnshaw <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/21/2002 12:15:04
> I don't see a massive problem in having cpu dependent code in the
> kernel. It is a bigger problem for user space code.
Nor do I, provided that the cost of indirecting through a function pointer
(rather than just using BL) doesn't become a problem.
Perhaps the best way of doing this is to make the entry code common, and
then when we've determined that a 'big' copy is required to dispatch to
the CPU-specific routines. That means we only take the cost of an
indirect when it's likely to be a win.