Re: [RFC][PATCH] Faster generic_fls

[Andrew Morton]

Daniel Phillips <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Friday 02 May 2003 02:10, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > At first, I thought you had coded an FFS instead of an FLS. But I realized
> > it's valid, and is fast because one half of the numbers tested will not even
> > take one iteration.
> 
> Aha, and duh.  At 1 million iterations, my binary search clobbers the shift 
> version by a factor of four.  At 2**31 iterations, my version also wins, by 
> 20%.
> 

Would it be churlish to point out that the only significant user of fls()
is sctp_v6_addr_match_len()?