From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756623AbXLSODi (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:03:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752435AbXLSOD2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:03:28 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:38696 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751537AbXLSOD1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:03:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:03:13 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Herbert Xu Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Inline local_bh_disable when TRACE_IRQFLAGS Message-ID: <20071219140313.GE21282@elte.hu> References: <20071219034033.GA5770@gondor.apana.org.au> <20071219113152.GD20736@elte.hu> <20071219115019.GA9099@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071219115019.GA9099@gondor.apana.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > So I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to make it out-of-line > > > when TRACE_IRQFLAGS is off. This may make a difference because > > > the networking stack is a frequent user of local_bh_disable and > > > local_bh_enable. > > > > do you mean to make it inline again? > > Yes I meant in-line :) if that decreases code size then i guess we could do that. > > (btw., generally i think local_bh_disable() is a poor API because it > > is opaque about the data structure dependency that it governs. > > Explicit exclusion rules generally work better.) > > I see where you're coming from especially with your preemptible > softirq work. However I'm mostly thinking about the existing callers > of local_bh_disable in the networking stack. yeah, i was just commenting on the general concept of 'naked' local_bh_disable(). And just to make it clear: with that i'm not implying anything about the quality of the networking code - networking is one of the cleanest [if not the cleanest] subsystems in the kernel. It's just that it's long term more useful for us if our "global scope" APIs have direct, programmatic relationship to the data structures / data flow they control. So i'd love to have the same flow/performance, just coded a bit more explicitly. [preempt_disable() for example has similar issues.] Ingo