Messages in this thread | | | From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] v3 RCU: the bloatwatch edition | Date | Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:39:59 +0100 |
| |
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Your thought is that some of the functions could be moved to tinyrcu.h? > Indeed, some of them would be smaller if inlined than even the call > sequence. For example, rcu_needs_cpu() should remove code from the > dynticks implementation given that it always returns zero.
tinyrcu.h is probably not a bad idea. Some of the functions are trivial, and the code to do a function call is bigger than the body of the function itself.
rcu_exit_nohz(), rcu_nmi_enter/exit(), rcu_batches_completed[_bh](), for example. Even call_rcu() and call_rcu_bh() might perhaps benefit from inlining.
David
| |