search for: reusue

...hat the reg-allocator and alias analysis (assuming this exists in libjit) is not the best. I wonder if llvm will have a problem. If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... .... (foo == *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a initially in the second reference? I tried this out with the llvm demo, and the C code generated automatically created a temp for the first load, and then reused that temp in the secondary reference. I however would not be making such calls - I instead would probably...

Hi all: This series introduces the support for rx busy polling support. This was useful for reduing the latency for a kvm guest. Instead of introducing new states and spinlocks, this series re-uses NAPI state to synchonrize between NAPI and busy polling. This grealy simplified the codes and reduce the overheads of spinlocks for normal NAPI fast path. Test was done between a kvm guest and an

Hi all: This series introduces the support for rx busy polling support. This was useful for reduing the latency for a kvm guest. Instead of introducing new states and spinlocks, this series re-uses NAPI state to synchonrize between NAPI and busy polling. This grealy simplified the codes and reduce the overheads of spinlocks for normal NAPI fast path. Test was done between a kvm guest and an

...r and alias analysis (assuming > this exists in libjit) is not the best.  I wonder if llvm will have a > problem.  If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... ....  (foo == > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a > initially in the second reference?  I tried this out with the llvm demo, and > the C code generated automatically created a temp for the first load, and > then reused that temp in the secondary reference.  I however would not be > making such calls - I ins...

...(assuming > > this exists in libjit) is not the best. I wonder if llvm will have a > > problem. If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an > > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... .... (foo == > > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a > > initially in the second reference? I tried this out with the llvm demo, and > > the C code generated automatically created a temp for the first load, and > > then reused that temp in the secondary reference. I however would not be > > makin...

...(assuming > > this exists in libjit) is not the best. I wonder if llvm will have a > > problem. If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an > > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... .... (foo == > > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a > > initially in the second reference? I tried this out with the llvm demo, and > > the C code generated automatically created a temp for the first load, and > > then reused that temp in the secondary reference. I however would not be > > makin...

...gt; > this exists in libjit) is not the best.  I wonder if llvm will have a >> > problem.  If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an >> > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... ....  (foo == >> > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a >> > initially in the second reference?  I tried this out with the llvm demo, >> > and >> > the C code generated automatically created a temp for the first load, >> > and >> > then reused that temp in the secondary reference....