From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:00:08 -0800
Message-ID: <4966D9D8.2080609@zytor.com>
References: <1231365115.11687.361.camel@twins> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071355350.3057@localhost.localdomain> <1231366716.11687.377.camel@twins> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071509160.3057@localhost.localdomain> <1231408718.11687.400.camel@twins> <20090108141808.GC11629@elte.hu> <1231426014.11687.456.camel@twins> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080849550.3283@localhost.localdomain> <1231434515.14304.27.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080955400.3283@localhost.localdomain> <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <496648C7.5050700@zytor.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901081943150.6528@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@novell.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:39881 "EHLO
	terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750994AbZAIFEY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:04:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901081943150.6528@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> First off, gcc _does_ have a perfectly fine notion of how heavy-weight an 
> "asm" statement is: just count it as a single instruction (and count the 
> argument setup cost that gcc _can_ estimate).
> 

True.  It's not what it's doing, though.  It looks for '\n' and ';'
characters, and counts the maximum instruction size for each possible
instruction.

The reason why is that gcc's size estimation is partially designed to
select what kind of branches it needs to use on architectures which have
more than one type of branches.  As a result, it tends to drastically
overestimate, on purpose.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.