Re: [PATCH -tip] x86/locking/atomic: Use asm_inline for atomic locking insns

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 2/28/25 04:35, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> The code size of the resulting x86_64 defconfig object file increases
> for 33.264 kbytes, representing 1.2% code size increase:
> 
>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> 27450107        4633332  814148 32897587        1f5fa33 vmlinux-old.o
> 27483371        4633784  814148 32931303        1f67de7 vmlinux-new.o

So, first of all, thank you for including some objective measurement of
the impact if your patches. It's much appreciated.

But I think the patches need to come with a solid theory of why they're
good. The minimum bar for that, I think, is *some* kind of actual
real-world performance test. I'm not picky. Just *something* that spends
a lot of time in the kernel and ideally where a profile points at some
of the code you're poking here.

I'm seriously not picky: will-it-scale, lmbench, dbench, kernel
compiles. *ANYTHING*. *ANY* hardware. Run it on your laptop.

But performance patches need to come with performance *numbers*.