From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta7.messagelabs.com [216.82.255.55]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9DC6B0027 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 18:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p4HMAjZU018661 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 16:10:45 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p4HMJ92e091668 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 16:19:09 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p4HGHN7X008062 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 10:17:24 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: Add %ptc to safely print a task's comm From: John Stultz In-Reply-To: <4DD2EBAB.5080004@gmail.com> References: <1305665263-20933-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <1305665263-20933-3-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <4DD2EBAB.5080004@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:17:46 -0700 Message-ID: <1305670666.2915.128.camel@work-vm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jiri Slaby Cc: LKML , Joe Perches , Michal Nazarewicz , Andy Whitcroft , KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Dave Hansen , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:42 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 05/17/2011 10:47 PM, John Stultz wrote: > > +static noinline_for_stack > > I still fail to see why this should be slowed down by noinlining it. > Care to explain? Just that I was hesitant to change it without consensus and it follows the convention of other similarly called functions. > With my setup, the code below inlined will use 32 bytes of stack. The > same as %pK case. Uninlined it obviously eats "only" 8 bytes for IP. Maybe could we defer that discussion into a following patch, which maybe does a similar analysis on the other noinline_for_stack usage in that case? (And I may be dropping the whole series here in a bit, so more debate on it might be moot) thanks -john -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org