Alan Cox wrote:

>On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 20:22, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>  
>
>>kmalloc spends a large part of the total execution time trying to find 
>>the cache for the passed in size.
>>
>>What about the attached patch (against 2.5.44-mm5)?
>>It uses fls jump over the caches that are definitively too small.
>>    
>>
>
>Out of curiousity how does fls compare with finding the right cache by
>using a binary tree walk ? A lot of platforms seem to use generic_fls
>which has a lot of conditions in it and also a lot of references to just
>computed values that look likely to stall 
>  
>
Binary tree walk means 4 unpredictable branches and at least i386 can 
use bsrl for a fast fls().
Patch is attached.

--
    Manfred