From: mingo@kernel.org (Ingo Molnar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock_nested an inline function
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:13:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151027181351.GA15015@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151022174400.GW32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 05:09:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hmm, I was sure I send a reply, but I cannot even find it in my own sent
> > folder so who knows.
> >
> > My current preference is to keep the thing a macro and work around it in
> > the usage site because while these warns are annoying, they're at least
> > visible. Whereas, with an inline, code bloat is entirely silent. Even if
> > the sites you found are harmless, there's no saying what the future will
> > bring etc..
>
> I agree - we've got way too many inline functions already. My biggest annoyance
> in that respect is the asm-generic dma_map_single() implementation that we're
> now forced to use on ARM, which results in quite a large chunk of code at every
> callsite.
>
> The problem there is that when you have drivers which do something like:
>
> dma = dma_map_single(dev, page_address(page), size, dir);
>
> you end up with code which converts the struct page to a virtual address, and
> then you end up with code in the dma_map_single() inline function which then
> converts it back to a struct page + offset - none of which, with modern ARM
> kernels, the compiler has a hope in hell of optimising.
>
> So we end up with all that junk at every single dma_map_single() callsite. If
> dma_map_single() were a library function, it would be a lot smaller since we'd
> only have one copy of the complex virt->struct page conversion.
Should be pretty easy to fix, once you know which inline functions hurt.
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-27 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-13 20:30 [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock_nested an inline function Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-13 20:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-13 21:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-14 8:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-14 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-14 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-14 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-14 9:59 ` Mark Brown
2015-10-14 10:27 ` Mark Brown
2015-10-14 11:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-14 12:36 ` Mark Brown
2015-10-14 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-14 13:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-14 13:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-14 14:11 ` Mark Brown
2015-10-22 15:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-22 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-22 17:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-10-27 18:13 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20151027181351.GA15015@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).