From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Bolle Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/fb: mark ramfuc_reg() noinline Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 14:10:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1394197805.13615.5.camel@x41> References: <1389350275.2528.10.camel@x41> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cpsmtpb-ews05.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpb-ews05.kpnxchange.com [213.75.39.8]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11E7FAC95 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:10:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1389350275.2528.10.camel@x41> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: David Airlie Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Paul Bolle schreef op vr 10-01-2014 om 11:37 [+0100]: > Building ramnve0.o triggers a GCC warning on 32 bits x86: > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramnve0.c: In function 'nve0_ram_ctor': > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramnve0.c:1253:1: warning: the frame size of 1496 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=] > > This warning is caused by ramfuc_reg(), which is inlined 74 times in > nve0_ram_ctor(). Mark it noinline to silence this warning. > > Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle > --- > Compile tested (on 32 bits x86) only. I've no Nvidia cards at hand, so I > can't really test it. > > This assumes this function - a constructor, apparently - isn't called Here "this function" refers to nve0_ram_ctor(). > often, so the overhead calling of 74 functions is acceptable. (The same > goes for the similar functions in [...]/ramnva3.c and in > [...]/ramnvc0.c, though these call ramfuc_reg() not quite as often.) > Perhaps there are other downsides to not inlining this function too. So And here it refers to ramfuc_reg(). So my writing was a bit confusing. > proper testing will probably be needed. Building v3.14-rc5 on 32 bit x86 still triggers this warning. Has anyone tried to review or test this patch? Paul Bolle > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramfuc.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramfuc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramfuc.h > index 0f57fcf..04e3849 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramfuc.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/fb/ramfuc.h > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ ramfuc_reg2(u32 addr1, u32 addr2) > }; > } > > -static inline struct ramfuc_reg > +static noinline struct ramfuc_reg > ramfuc_reg(u32 addr) > { > return ramfuc_reg2(addr, addr);