lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 1 Apr 2008 10:33:59 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?
* Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> wrote:

> > What is the reason for this asymetry? Shouldn't the acquiring 
> > functions be implemented in the very same way? Or at least, 
> > shouldn't all the __lockfunc functions be inlined?
> 
> i.e. is there any particular reason why we don't have something like 
> the patch below (implemented for all the lock variants of course, this 
> is just to demonstrate what I mean)?

IIRC the main reason we decided to uninline them was image size. So i'd 
suggest for you to check how this change impacts vmlinux size (on both 
64-bit and 32-bit), a typical distro config (or allyesconfig with lock 
debugging disabled).

If you do the test on x86.git/latest you'll also have the 
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y and CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y combination 
as well, which generates the most compact x86 kernel image ever.

	Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-01 10:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2008