Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752000AbeANSNm (ORCPT + 1 other); Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:13:42 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:38165 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751622AbeANSNl (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:13:41 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:13:33 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andi Kleen cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/spinlocks: Mark spinlocks noinline when inline spinlocks are disabled In-Reply-To: <20171222001821.2157-4-andi@firstfloor.org> Message-ID: References: <20171222001821.2157-1-andi@firstfloor.org> <20171222001821.2157-4-andi@firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, Andi Kleen wrote: > From: Andi Kleen > > Otherwise LTO will inline them anyways and cause a large > kernel text increase. > > Since the explicit intention here is to not inline them marking > them noinline is good documentation even for the non LTO case. > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen > --- > kernel/locking/spinlock.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ How is that patch x86 specific? Cc'in the maintainers of that is not optional either. Thanks, tglx