lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [uClinux-dev] Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?
From
On Thursday, Jul 24, 2003, at 23:22 US/Central, Otto Solares wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:20:00PM +0200, J.A. Magallon wrote:
>> Or you just define must_inline, and let gcc inline the rest of
>> 'inlines',
>> based on its own rule of functions size, adjusting the parameters
>> to gcc to assure (more or less) that what is inlined fits in cache of
>> the processor one is building for...
>> (this can be hard, help from gcc hackers will be needed...)
>
> IMO just a CONFIG_INLINE_FUNCTIONS will work, if you
> want to conserve space in detriment of speed simply
> don't select this option, else you have speed but
> a big kernel.

Inlines don't always help performance (depending on cache sizes, branch
penalties, frequency of code access...), but they do always increase
code size.

I believe the point Alan was trying to make is not that we should have
more or less inlines, but we should have smarter inlines. I.E. don't
just inline a function to "make it fast"; think about the implications
(and ideally measure it, though I think that becomes problematic when
so many other factors can affect the benefit of a single inlined
function). The specific example he gave was inlining code on the fast
path, while accepting branch/cache penalties for non-inlined code on
the slow path.

--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans