[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] Generic rb tree code
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:22:46AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:57:38PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Right now, users of the rb tree code have to open code their own search and
> > insert functions. This provides generic versions that you pass a comparison
> > function to.
> >
> > I highly doubt the extra function calls are going to have a measurable
> > performance impact in practice - the pointer chasing is going to dominate. I
> > did provide inline versions just in case, though - it's modelled after the
> > spinlock code.
> Modeled after spinlock code how? AFAICS, spinlock code doesn't
> present inline and !inline versions to users.

That probably wasn't intended, but it's how it works out.
__raw_spin_lock() and all the variants are defined as inline functions,
and then depending on whether CONFIG_INLINE_BLAH is enabled
_raw_spin_lock_blah() is defined to __raw_spin_lock_blah(), otherwise
_raw_spin_lock_blah() is a wrapper in a .c file.

But the end result is that the inline versions are also available.

> All the current users
> are inline anyway, why not just provide inlined versions and worry
> about whether inlining is beneifical in a separate patch?

Yeah, possible. I think it's only going to be an issue for rb_search()
in practice (since rb_search needs the stack allocated search argument),
should probably just drop the inline version of rb_insert().

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-29 05:41    [W:0.061 / U:13.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site