Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758543AbbDXUop (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:44:45 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:36563 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758390AbbDXUoo (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:44:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150424201340.GD5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1429825201-2825-1-git-send-email-hagen@jauu.net> <20150424124905.07e29a3b1392513144cd1568@linux-foundation.org> <20150424201340.GD5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 22:44:43 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] enforce function inlining for hot functions From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer To: Paul McKenney Cc: Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "David S. Miller" , x86@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 872 Lines: 20 On 24 April 2015 at 22:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote: Hey Paul, > Hmmm... allyesconfig would have PROVE_RCU=y, which would mean that the > above two would contain lockdep calls that might in some cases defeat > inlining. With the more typical production choice of PROVE_RCU=n, I would > expect these to just be a call instruction, which should get inlined. I can rebuild and check with PROVE_RCU=n - the question is what is the reaction to the result? I tend to enforce the inlining anyway for both rcu functions because nobody is harmed. But wait, the compiler is already started ... ;-) Hagen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/