Kai Liu bb19b530ca Aggressively inlining the short functions in coding.cc ... Summary: This diff takes an even more aggressive way to inline the functions. A decent rule that I followed is "not inline a function if it is more than 10 lines long." Normally optimizing code by inline is ugly and hard to control, but since one of our usecase has significant amount of CPU used in functions from coding.cc, I'd like to try this diff out. Test Plan: 1. the size for some .o file increased a little bit, but most less than 1%. So I think the negative impact of inline is negligible. 2. As the regression test shows (ran for 10 times and I calculated the average number) Metrics Befor After ======================================================================== rocksdb.build.fillseq.qps 426595 444515 (+4.6%) rocksdb.build.memtablefillrandom.qps 121739 123110 rocksdb.build.memtablereadrandom.qps 1285103 1280520 rocksdb.build.overwrite.qps 125816 135570 (+9%) rocksdb.build.readrandom_fillunique_random.qps 285995 296863 rocksdb.build.readrandom_memtable_sst.qps 1027132 1027279 rocksdb.build.readrandom.qps 1041427 1054665 rocksdb.build.readrandom_smallblockcache.qps 1028631 1038433 rocksdb.build.readwhilewriting.qps 918352 914629 Reviewers: haobo, sdong, igor CC: leveldb Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D15291		2014-01-23 16:03:34 -08:00
..
rocksdb	Aggressively inlining the short functions in coding.cc	2014-01-23 16:03:34 -08:00
utilities	Feature requests for BackupableDB	2014-01-09 12:24:28 -08:00