From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched, wait: Collapse __wait_event macros -v4
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:11:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130930161141.GF3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzs-+2HCAjxU=7FJ-1+q1hnDADJ_rzTRdMuDrzzYAVstw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Compile and boot tested on x86_64.
>
> Btw, I assume the odd binary size reduction is gone now, and code
> generation is generally identical?
Over patch 4; yes. Patches 1-3 generate different kernels, esp patch 2
has a large drop in size, 5 too is invariant. Patch 6 however increases
code size again, but then it actually changes the generated code so
that's somewhat expected.
But with patches 1-3 its all clear what changes and why; and having the
big scary conversion patch 4 invariant is good.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-30 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-30 15:22 [PATCH 0/6] sched, wait: Collapse __wait_event macros -v4 Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 15:22 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched, wait: Make the signal_pending() checks consistent Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 15:22 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched, wait: Change timeout logic Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 15:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-09-30 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 15:22 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched, wait: Change the wait_exclusive control flow Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 15:22 ` [PATCH 4/6] sched, wait: Collapse __wait_event macros Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 15:22 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched, wait: Also use ___wait_event() for __wait_event_hrtimeout Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 15:22 ` [PATCH 6/6] sched, wait: Make the __wait_event*() interface more friendly Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-01 6:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-30 15:50 ` [PATCH 0/6] sched, wait: Collapse __wait_event macros -v4 Linus Torvalds
2013-09-30 16:11 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-09-30 17:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-09-30 18:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-09-30 18:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-30 18:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-01 14:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-01 14:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-01 15:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-01 17:01 ` [RFC] introduce prepare_to_wait_event() Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-01 17:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-01 17:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-10-01 17:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20130930161141.GF3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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