From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.64]:30439 "EHLO mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754272AbaCaNnE (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:43:04 -0400 Message-ID: <533970DF.70303@broadcom.com> (sfid-20140331_154337_292937_4B2FC099) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:42:55 +0200 From: Arend van Spriel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denys Vlasenko , Franky Lin , Hante Meuleman , "John W. Linville" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] brcm80211: deinline brcmf_chip_cr4_enterdl, save 440 bytes References: <1396215079-7541-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com> <53391B89.7010304@broadcom.com> <53394F23.6080805@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53394F23.6080805@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 31/03/14 13:18, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On 03/31/2014 09:38 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 30/03/14 23:31, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >>> Automated script discovered that without forced inlining, >>> gcc-4.7 generates smaller code for this function. >>> >>> There is no need to declare static functions inline anyway: >>> nowadays gcc detects single-callsite static functions >>> which benefit from inlining. >> >> These patches look awfully familiar. I tend to object, but I don't know the details of this automated script. > > The script removes "static" keyword, recompiles the .c file, > compares the sizes, and if code size went down, > creates a patch > >> How about execution time or is this only compile tested? > > The change adds one pair of call/return instructions - > probably around 5-10 CPU cycles. > > The function in question is a part of firmware download logic, > which is nowhere near being hot path/. True. My remarks are on all four patches and I just replied to the first patch. The other patches are in interrupt handling code, ie. interrupt or bottom-halve context. >> The other thing is that you seem to rely on a specific gcc version. >> What about pre-4.7? How about different architectures. >> Was this determined on x86, arm, sparc, mips. >> All these questions make me say 'nay'. > > Not making functions inline unless there is a good reason > is a general good coding practice. It is not a compiler- > or architecture-specific optimization. Agree, but you seem to assume that in this case there is no good reason. Regards, Arend