Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits

* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:

> spin_lock is still uninlined.

yes, and that should stay so i believe, for text size reasons. The BTB 
should eliminate most effects of the call+ret itself.

> as is spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_lock_irq()

yes, for them the code length is even higher.

> uninlining spin_lock will probably increase overall text size, but 
> mainly in the out-of-line section.

you mean inlining it again? I dont think we should do it.

> read_lock is out-of-line.  read_unlock is inlined
> 
> write_lock is out-of-line.  write_unlock is out-of-line.

hm, with my patch, write_unlock should be inlined too.

	Ingo
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: [ANNOUNCE] [PATCH] ktimers subsystem, reworked
Next by Date: [PATCH 0/4] Swap migration V3: Overview
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]