public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [3/5] Mark complex bitops.h inlines as __always_inline
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:32:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090106143215.GD496@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090106101710.GA22134@elte.hu>

> Your patch is wrong because it prevents a good compiler from doing the 
> right inlining decisions.

One or two instruction bitops should be always inlined, not inlining them
always generates much worse code than inlining them. That's easy
to prove just based on code size: the call overhead is larger 
than the inlined code.

This patch just makes sure they get always inlined by marking
those explicitely. There's no reason ever to not inline
those, so giving the compiler a choice doesn't make sense.

Even on a compiler with perfect inlining algorithm (which 
no compiler has) that's true and stating that explicitely 
is correct.

Also to handle inlines in all cases that have code that collapses at compile
time (e.g. __builtin_constant_p tests and similar) correctly the compiler
needs the new "early inlining + optimization" pass that was 
added with gcc 4.4 only. But 4.4 is not even out yet, so obviously
most people don't use it.

That is why *_user() for example always needs to be marked
__always_inline. This patch just extends it a bit more to
more functions with the same problem.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-06 14:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-04 23:36 [PATCH] [0/5] Couple of x86 patches for 2.6.29 Andi Kleen
2009-01-04 23:36 ` [PATCH] [1/5] Only scan the root bus in early PCI quirks Andi Kleen
2009-01-04 23:51   ` Yinghai Lu
2009-01-05  1:46     ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-04 23:36 ` [PATCH] [2/5] Allow HPET force enable on ICH10 HPET Andi Kleen
2009-01-04 23:36 ` [PATCH] [3/5] Mark complex bitops.h inlines as __always_inline Andi Kleen
2009-01-06  0:03   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-06 10:17   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-06 14:32     ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2009-01-07 13:26       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-07 19:46         ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-06 19:17   ` Hugh Dickins
2009-01-07 13:18     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-08  2:16       ` Hugh Dickins
2009-01-08  5:07         ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-08  8:04       ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-04 23:36 ` [PATCH] [4/5] Use asm stubs for 32bit sigreturn codes Andi Kleen
2009-01-05  0:08   ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-04 23:36 ` [PATCH] [5/5] Avoid theoretical vmalloc fault loop Andi Kleen
2009-01-05 11:47   ` Nick Piggin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090106143215.GD496@one.firstfloor.org \
    --to=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox