lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
    Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
    >
    >
    > * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
    >
    > > spin_lock is still uninlined.
    >
    > yes, and that should stay so i believe, for text size reasons. The BTB
    > should eliminate most effects of the call+ret itself.

    The old

    lock; decb
    js <different section>
    ...

    was pretty good.

    > > as is spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_lock_irq()
    >
    > yes, for them the code length is even higher.
    >
    > > uninlining spin_lock will probably increase overall text size, but
    > > mainly in the out-of-line section.
    >
    > you mean inlining it again? I dont think we should do it.
    >
    > > read_lock is out-of-line. read_unlock is inlined
    > >
    > > write_lock is out-of-line. write_unlock is out-of-line.
    >
    > hm, with my patch, write_unlock should be inlined too.
    >

    So it is. foo_unlock_irq() isn't though.
    -
    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: 2005-10-21 01:04    [W:0.027 / U:0.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site