From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: gcc inlining heuristics was Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:34:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20090111203441.GQ26290@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090109231227.GA25070@elte.hu> <20090110010125.GA31031@elte.hu> <20090109174158.096dee70.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090110030216.GW26290@one.firstfloor.org> <1231676801.25018.150.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090111181307.GM26290@one.firstfloor.org> <20090111201427.GP26290@one.firstfloor.org> <1231704939.25018.548.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Harvey Harrison , "H. Peter Anvin" , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich , jh@suse.cz To: David Woodhouse Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1231704939.25018.548.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > Isn't the ioctl switch stack issue a separate GCC bug? > > It was/is assigning assigning separate space for local variables which Was -- i think that got fixed in gcc. But again only in newer versions. > are mutually exclusive. So instead of the stack footprint of the > function with the switch() being equal to the largest individual stack > size of all the subfunctions, it's equal to the _sum_ of the stack sizes > of the subfunctions. Even though it'll never use them all at the same > time. > > Without that bug, it would have been harmless to inline them all. True. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com