Con Kolivas wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:26, Jesper Juhl wrote:
A few functions in init/initramfs.c are so simple that I don't see why
*any* point in them having to bear the cost of a function call.
Wouldn't something like the patch below make sense ?
-static void __init *malloc(size_t size)
+static inline void __init *malloc(size_t size)
{
return kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
maybe it looks like it would, but kmalloc looks like this:
85 static inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, int flags)
86 {
87 if (__builtin_constant_p(size)) {
88 int i = 0;
89 #define CACHE(x) \
90 if (size <= x) \
91 goto found; \
92 else \
93 i++;
94 #include "kmalloc_sizes.h"
95 #undef CACHE
96 {
97 extern void __you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much(void);
98 __you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much();
99 }
100 found:
101 return kmem_cache_alloc((flags & GFP_DMA) ?
102 malloc_sizes[i].cs_dmacachep :
103 malloc_sizes[i].cs_cachep, flags);
104 }
105 return __kmalloc(size, flags);
106 }
which is not a one liner to inline at all
Actually, this is even better, because the inline 'malloc' should be
able to propogate the builtin_constantness of 'size' while an out of
line version cannot.
IMO the best policy is not to second guess the API implementor's
choice of inline / noinline. That is - if kmalloc was too big to
inline then it should be fixed in kmalloc or another interface
introduced.
Nick
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |