From: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 +0000
> OK... Remaining interesting question is whether it adds a noticable > overhead. Could somebody try it on assorted benchmarks and see if > it slows the things down? The patch in question follows: That's about a 40 byte copy onto the stack for each invocation of this thing. You can benchmark all you want, but it's clear that this is non-trivial amount of work and will take some operations from fitting in the cache to not doing so for sure.
