Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:03:13 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Inline local_bh_disable when TRACE_IRQFLAGS |
| |
* Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > So I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to make it out-of-line > > > when TRACE_IRQFLAGS is off. This may make a difference because > > > the networking stack is a frequent user of local_bh_disable and > > > local_bh_enable. > > > > do you mean to make it inline again? > > Yes I meant in-line :)
if that decreases code size then i guess we could do that.
> > (btw., generally i think local_bh_disable() is a poor API because it > > is opaque about the data structure dependency that it governs. > > Explicit exclusion rules generally work better.) > > I see where you're coming from especially with your preemptible > softirq work. However I'm mostly thinking about the existing callers > of local_bh_disable in the networking stack.
yeah, i was just commenting on the general concept of 'naked' local_bh_disable(). And just to make it clear: with that i'm not implying anything about the quality of the networking code - networking is one of the cleanest [if not the cleanest] subsystems in the kernel.
It's just that it's long term more useful for us if our "global scope" APIs have direct, programmatic relationship to the data structures / data flow they control. So i'd love to have the same flow/performance, just coded a bit more explicitly. [preempt_disable() for example has similar issues.]
Ingo
| |