[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:0.023 / U:50.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site