From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Aaron Sierra <asierra@xes-inc.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi: Deiline large functions
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:50:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <555D8E4E.9030109@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150520185641.GI11598@ld-irv-0074>
On 05/20/2015 08:56 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:58:40PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> With this .config: http://busybox.net/~vda/kernel_config,
>> after uninlining these functions have sizes and callsite counts
>> as follows:
>
> Most of this is probably good, thanks. But I'm curious about one:
>
>> cfi_udelay(): 74 bytes, 26 callsites
>
> ^^ This is pretty dead-simple. If it's generating bad code, we might
> look at fixing it up instead. Almost all of its call sites are with
> constant input, so it *should* just become:
>
> udelay(1);
> cond_resched();
>
> in most cases. For the non-constant cases, we might still do an
> out-of-line implementation. Or maybe we just say it's all not worth it,
> and we just stick with what you have. But I'd like to consider
> alternatives to out-lining this one.
You want to consider not-deinlining (IOW: speed-optimizing)
a *fixed time delay function*?
Think about what delay functions do...
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>,
Aaron Sierra <asierra@xes-inc.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi: Deiline large functions
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:50:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <555D8E4E.9030109@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150520185641.GI11598@ld-irv-0074>
On 05/20/2015 08:56 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:58:40PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> With this .config: http://busybox.net/~vda/kernel_config,
>> after uninlining these functions have sizes and callsite counts
>> as follows:
>
> Most of this is probably good, thanks. But I'm curious about one:
>
>> cfi_udelay(): 74 bytes, 26 callsites
>
> ^^ This is pretty dead-simple. If it's generating bad code, we might
> look at fixing it up instead. Almost all of its call sites are with
> constant input, so it *should* just become:
>
> udelay(1);
> cond_resched();
>
> in most cases. For the non-constant cases, we might still do an
> out-of-line implementation. Or maybe we just say it's all not worth it,
> and we just stick with what you have. But I'd like to consider
> alternatives to out-lining this one.
You want to consider not-deinlining (IOW: speed-optimizing)
a *fixed time delay function*?
Think about what delay functions do...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-21 7:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-18 10:58 [PATCH] mtd: cfi: Deiline large functions Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-18 10:58 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-20 18:56 ` Brian Norris
2015-05-20 18:56 ` Brian Norris
2015-05-21 7:50 ` Denys Vlasenko [this message]
2015-05-21 7:50 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-21 8:36 ` Brian Norris
2015-05-21 8:36 ` Brian Norris
2015-05-21 10:13 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-21 10:13 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-21 18:03 ` Brian Norris
2015-05-21 18:03 ` Brian Norris
2015-05-27 19:44 ` Brian Norris
2015-05-27 19:44 ` Brian Norris
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=555D8E4E.9030109@redhat.com \
--to=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=Artem.Bityutskiy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=David.Woodhouse@intel.com \
--cc=asierra@xes-inc.com \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=jg1.han@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.