Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272147AbTGYPVn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:21:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272148AbTGYPVn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:21:43 -0400 Received: from natsmtp00.webmailer.de ([192.67.198.74]:31682 "EHLO post.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272147AbTGYPVk (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:21:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3F214EC3.9010804@softhome.net> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:37:39 +0200 From: "Ihar \"Philips\" Filipau" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030701 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [uClinux-dev] Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2065 Lines: 42 Hollis Blanchard wrote: > I believe the point Alan was trying to make is not that we should have > more or less inlines, but we should have smarter inlines. I.E. don't > just inline a function to "make it fast"; think about the implications > (and ideally measure it, though I think that becomes problematic when so > many other factors can affect the benefit of a single inlined function). > The specific example he gave was inlining code on the fast path, while > accepting branch/cache penalties for non-inlined code on the slow path. > But you cannot make this kind of decisions universal. Some kind of compromise should be found between arch-mantainers and subsystem-mantainers. Or beat GCC developer hard so they finally will produce good optimizing compiler ;-) Or ask all kernel developpers to work one hour per week on GCC optimization - I bet GCC will outperform everything else in industry in less that one year ;-))) To remind: source of the problem is not inlines, problem is the compiler, which cannot read our minds yet and generate code we were expected it to generate. P.S. Offtopic. As I see it Linux & Linus have made the decision of optimization. Linux after all is capitalismus creation: who has more money do control everything. Server market has more money - they do more work on kernel and they systems are not that far from developers' workstations - so Linux gets more and more server/workstation oriented. This will fit desktop market too - if your computer was made to run WinXP AKA exp(bloat) - it will be capable to run any OS. Linus repeating 'small is beatiful' sounds more and more like crude joke... As for embedded market - it is already in deep fork and far far away from vanilla kernels... Vanilla really not that relevant to real world... - 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/