On 09/02/2011 01:27 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't know whether that fastpath code is small enough to consider
>> inlining everywhere?
> No.
>
> There's no point in inlining something that ends up containing a
> conditional function call: gcc will have to effectively save/restore
> registers around that thing anyway, so you lose a lot of the
> advantages of inlining. So I think it's better done as an out-of-line
> function, which I thought we did for spinlocks anyway.
Yes, lock currently out-of-line.
I should also make sure that unlock is also out of line when
paravirtualized.
> Also, do you run with CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_SIZE? Without that, gcc should
> be smart enough to make a "likely()" case be a fall-through.
Ah, I was wondering why I'd never seen likely/unlikely do anything
useful. With OPTIMIZE_SIZE=n, there's no point in explicitly moving the
slowpath out to a separate function.
So the only downside with this variant is that it breaks my design
criteria of making the generated code look identical to the the original
code when CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=n. But I don't know if that's an
actual downside in practice.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
