Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:00:28 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |