From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:15:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20090109211513.GO26290@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1231408718.11687.400.camel@twins> <20090108141808.GC11629@elte.hu> <1231426014.11687.456.camel@twins> <1231434515.14304.27.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <20090108190038.GH496@one.firstfloor.org> <4966AB74.2090104@zytor.com> <20090109133710.GB31845@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090109133710.GB31845@elte.hu> List-ID: > I've done a finegrained size analysis today (see my other mail in this > thread), and it turns out that on gcc 4.3.x the main (and pretty much > only) inlining annotation that matters in arch/x86/include/asm/*.h is the > onliner patch attached below, annotating constant_test_bit(). That's pretty cool. Should definitely file a gcc bug report for that though so that they can fix gcc. Did you already do that or should I? -Andi