Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:37:36 -0400 (EDT) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.6] Completely out of line spinlocks / i386 |
| |
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I actually favored making C language spin_lock() (i.e. the goddamn > thing is declared as a C function void spin_lock(spinlock_t *) and is > called like a normal C function -- no inline asm or inline C functions > at all) entrypoints beyond merely conslidating contention loops, but I > feared that would be too extreme of a reversal of the status quo to > ever get traction to post it. It did, however, shrink the kernel text > the most of any of the out-of-line spinlock patches by a large margin, > something completely absurd-sounding, like 220KB vs. 20KB-60KB. =)
Could you post the patch and the results? It'd also be interesting to see the function call setup in a number of cases. - 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/
| |