From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/6] MCS Lock: Move mcs_lock/unlock function into its own Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:06:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20140122130619.GA9429@gmail.com> References: <1390267471.3138.38.camel@schen9-DESK> <20140121101915.GS31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140121104140.GA4092@gmail.com> <1390330623.3138.56.camel@schen9-DESK> <20140121190658.GA5862@gmail.com> <1390331671.3138.58.camel@schen9-DESK> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1390331671.3138.58.camel@schen9-DESK> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tim Chen Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E.McKenney" , Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Waiman Long , Andrea Arcangeli , Alex Shi , Andi Kleen , Michel Lespinasse , Davidlohr Bueso , Matthew R Wilcox , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Peter Hurley , Raghavendra K T , George Spelvin , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arnd List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org * Tim Chen wrote: > > > For the time being, I'll just remove the EXPORT. If people feel > > > that inline is the right way to go, then we'll leave the > > > function in mcs_spin_lock.h and not create mcs_spin_lock.c. > > > > Well, 'people' could be you, the person touching the code? This is > > really something that is discoverable: look at the critical path > > in the inlined and the out of line case, and compare the number of > > instructions. This can be done based on disassembly of the > > affected code. > > Okay, will make it inline function and drop the move of to > mcs_spin_lock.c Only if I'm right! I was speculating. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org