From: Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>
To: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] RAID1: a new I/O barrier implementation to remove resync window
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:14:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58AB320B.1060707@youngman.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7178ADEA-6263-4FB0-95A5-96E5F71A9740@suse.de>
On 20/02/17 08:07, Coly Li wrote:
> For the function pointer asignment, it is because I see a brach happens in a loop. If I use a function pointer, I can avoid redundant brach inside the loop. raid1_read_request() and raid1_write_request() are not simple functions, I don't know whether gcc may make them inline or not, so I am on the way to check the disassembled code..
Can you force gcc to inline or compile a function? Isn't it dangerous to
rely on default behaviour and assume it won't change when the compiler
is upgraded?
Cheers,
Wol
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-20 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-15 16:35 [PATCH V3 1/2] RAID1: a new I/O barrier implementation to remove resync window colyli
2017-02-15 16:35 ` [PATCH V3 2/2] RAID1: avoid unnecessary spin locks in I/O barrier code colyli
2017-02-15 17:15 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 2:25 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-17 18:42 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 7:04 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-17 7:56 ` Coly Li
2017-02-17 18:35 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 2:22 ` [PATCH V3 1/2] RAID1: a new I/O barrier implementation to remove resync window Shaohua Li
2017-02-16 17:05 ` Coly Li
2017-02-17 12:40 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 7:04 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-17 6:56 ` Coly Li
2017-02-19 23:50 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-20 2:51 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-20 7:04 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-20 8:07 ` Coly Li
2017-02-20 8:30 ` Coly Li
2017-02-20 18:14 ` Wols Lists [this message]
2017-02-21 11:30 ` Coly Li
2017-02-21 19:20 ` Wols Lists
2017-02-21 20:16 ` Coly Li
2017-02-21 0:29 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-21 9:45 ` Coly Li
2017-02-21 17:45 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-21 20:09 ` Coly Li
2017-02-23 5:54 ` Coly Li
2017-02-23 17:34 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-23 19:31 ` Coly Li
2017-02-23 19:58 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-24 17:02 ` Coly Li
2017-02-24 10:19 ` 王金浦
2017-02-28 19:42 ` Shaohua Li
2017-03-01 17:01 ` 王金浦
2017-02-23 23:14 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-24 17:06 ` Coly Li
2017-02-24 17:17 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-24 18:57 ` Coly Li
2017-02-24 19:02 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-24 19:19 ` Coly Li
2017-02-17 19:41 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-18 2:40 ` Coly Li
2017-02-19 23:42 ` NeilBrown
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=58AB320B.1060707@youngman.org.uk \
--to=antlists@youngman.org.uk \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=gqjiang@suse.com \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=shli@kernel.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.