Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:01:15 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |