Re: [PATCH v2 05/18] perf test: Add deterministic workload

[Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 02:10:37PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/06/2026 12:27 pm, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 03:26:47PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > @@ -22,3 +23,4 @@ CFLAGS_brstack.o          = -g -O0 -fno-inline -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > >   CFLAGS_datasym.o          = -g -O0 -fno-inline -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > >   CFLAGS_traploop.o         = -g -O0 -fno-inline -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > >   CFLAGS_inlineloop.o       = -g -O2
> > > +CFLAGS_deterministic.o    = -g -O0
> > 
> > I have no strong opinion for using 'noinline' in source or using the
> > global option '-fno-inline', just thought this is not easy to follow
> > up if anyone (likely myself) will write a new workload for disabling
> > inline. Could we have consistent style for this?
> > 
> > For the patch itself:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>
> 
> Actually it's a fair question why some have -fno-inline and others do it in
> the code, it could just be copied from when these were built by their shell
> script tests. From a quick look I would say we can easily drop the
> -fno-inline and do it in the code, and it's better to only noinline what's
> needed rather than everything. But that's probably a change for another
> time.

Seems to me, `-fno-inline` is more reliable.

I.e., in this patch deterministic() has no 'noinline' annotation, my
understanding is the test expects it is not inlined. With `-fno-inline`
flag, we don't need to worry anything is missed.

Thanks,
Leo