lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
    On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:35:31 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

    > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    > > Harvey Harrison wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> We might still try the second or third options, as i think we shouldnt go
    > > >> back into the business of managing the inline attributes of ~100,000
    > > >> kernel functions.
    > > >
    > > > Or just make it clear that inline shouldn't (unless for a very good reason)
    > > > _ever_ be used in a .c file.
    > > >
    > >
    > > The question is if that would produce acceptable quality code. In
    > > theory it should, but I'm more than wondering if it really will.
    >
    > I actually often use noinline when developing code simply because it
    > makes it easier to read oopses when gcc doesn't inline ever static
    > (which it normally does if it only has a single caller). You know
    > roughly where it crashed without having to decode the line number.
    >
    > I believe others do that too, I notice it's all over btrfs for example.
    >

    Plus there is the problem where

    foo()
    {
    char a[1000];
    }

    bar()
    {
    char a[1000];
    }

    zot()
    {
    foo();
    bar();
    }

    uses 2000 bytes of stack.

    Fortunately scripts/checkstack.pl can find these.

    If someone runs it.

    With the right kconfig settings.

    And with the right compiler version.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-09 07:27    [W:4.026 / U:1.396 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site