Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 22:55:56 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, 76306.1226@compuserve.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [patch] i386 spinlocks: disable interrupts only if we enabled
 them
Message-Id: <20060307225556.75cee661.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060308025227.GP5410@kvack.org>
References: <200603071837_MC3-1-BA13-E5FB@compuserve.com>
	<20060307161550.27941df5.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20060308004308.GA16069@elte.hu>
	<20060308025227.GP5410@kvack.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 783
Lines: 17

Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:43:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>  > we dont inline that code anymore. So i think the optimization is fine.
> 
>  Why is that?  It adds memory traffic that has to be synchronized 
>  before the lock occurs and clobbered registers now in the caller.

Is the inlined lock;decb+jns likely to worsen the text size?  I doubt it. 
Overall text will get bigger due to the out-of-line stuff, but that's OK.

I'm sure we went over all this, but I don't recall the thinking.
-
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/