Re: [PATCH] x86, locking: Inline *_unlock_bh & *_unlock_irqrestore

2017-02-10 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Waiman Long wrote: > For spinlock and read-write locks, both *_unlock() and *_unlock_irq() > functions are inlined if !PREEMPT. Whereas the *_unlock_bh() and > *unlock_irqrestore() are not inlined as that will increase the size > of the kernel binary. > > Given the fact that

Re: [PATCH] x86, locking: Inline *_unlock_bh & *_unlock_irqrestore

2017-02-10 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Waiman Long wrote: > For spinlock and read-write locks, both *_unlock() and *_unlock_irq() > functions are inlined if !PREEMPT. Whereas the *_unlock_bh() and > *unlock_irqrestore() are not inlined as that will increase the size > of the kernel binary. > > Given the fact that

[PATCH] x86, locking: Inline *_unlock_bh & *_unlock_irqrestore

2017-02-02 Thread Waiman Long
For spinlock and read-write locks, both *_unlock() and *_unlock_irq() functions are inlined if !PREEMPT. Whereas the *_unlock_bh() and *unlock_irqrestore() are not inlined as that will increase the size of the kernel binary. Given the fact that the PV qspinlock unlock call is a callee-saved

[PATCH] x86, locking: Inline *_unlock_bh & *_unlock_irqrestore

2017-02-02 Thread Waiman Long
For spinlock and read-write locks, both *_unlock() and *_unlock_irq() functions are inlined if !PREEMPT. Whereas the *_unlock_bh() and *unlock_irqrestore() are not inlined as that will increase the size of the kernel binary. Given the fact that the PV qspinlock unlock call is a callee-saved