Re: x86: spin_unlock(), spin_unlock_irq() & others are out of line ?

[Lee Revell]

On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:48 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Is it a regression, or is it needed ?
> 

Please see the "Completely out of line spinlocks" thread from about a
month ago.

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

x86: spin_unlock(), spin_unlock_irq() & others are out of line ?

[Eric Dumazet]

Hi all
I noticed that in current linux kernel versions (2.6.11), some basic 
functions are out of line (not inlined)

Example of a call to spin_unlock(&somelock)
c01069fa:   b8 e8 7b 35 c0  mov$0xc0357be8,%eax
c01069ff:   e8 3c e4 1f 00  call   c0304e40 <_spin_unlock>
c0304e40 <_spin_unlock>:
c0304e40:   c6 00 01movb   $0x1,(%eax)
c0304e43:   c3  ret
Same problem for _write_unlock(), _read_unlock(), _spin_unlock_irq(), ...
That seems odd, and I fail to see the reason for that. (It's OK for 
complex functions, but not for very short ones...)

Is it a regression, or is it needed ?
configuration :
- SMP
- Processor family (Pentium-4/Celeron(P4-based)/Pentium-4 M/Xeon)
- No "Generic x86 support"
Thank you
Eric Dumazet
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/