[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 1/3] move WARN_ON() out of line
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Yeah, that seems reasonable if you're optimising for overall size. Did
> you count the difference of including the function name? We decided not
> to include it for BUG because its usefulness/size tradeoff didn't seem
> terribly important.

in the WARN_ON case it's not there either, based on Ingo's idea we do a kallsyms lookup
of __builtin_return_address(0) .. same data, less memory.

> But my goal was actually to reduce icache pollution, so by my reckoning
> code bytes were much more expensive than data ones, so putting all BUG
> information in a separate section makes those bytes much less
> significant than putting anything inline in code. Also, the trap for
> WARN_ON would be smaller than BUG, because it wouldn't need the spurious
> infinite loop needed to make gcc understand the control flow of a BUG.
> On the other hand, you could put the call to out of line warning
> function in a separate section to achieve the same effect.

yeah and gcc even has a compiler option for that. Doubt it's really worth it,
we're still talking a few bytes here ;)

> J

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-05 21:09    [W:0.102 / U:4.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site