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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site