Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-10T05:07:26Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> There's none. In fact, it's wrong, unless you _also_ have an extern
> definition (according to the "new" gcc rules as of back in the days).
>
> Of course, as long as "inline" really means _always_ inline, it won't
> matter. So in that sense Ingo is right - we _could_. Which has no bearing
> on whether we _should_, of course.
>

I was thinking about experimenting with this, to see what level of
upside it might add. Ingo showed me numbers which indicate that a
fairly significant fraction of the cases where removing inline helps is
in .h files, which would require code movement to fix. Hence to see if
it can be automated.

-hpa

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