Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:54:26 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment |
| |
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:49:35AM -0700, Jason Low wrote: > On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 22:18 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > ... as we clearly inline mcs_spin_lock() now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> > > --- > > kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 3 --- > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h > > index 23e89c5..4d60986 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h > > +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h > > @@ -56,9 +56,6 @@ do { \ > > * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin > > * on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked > > * in mcs_spin_unlock(). > > - * > > - * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the > > - * time spent in this lock function. > > */ > > static inline > > void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) > > Likewise, I'm wondering if we should make this function noinline so that > "perf can correctly account for the time spent in this lock function".
What's that about anyhow? Surely perf can see where IPs come from? DWARF has inline support after all. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |