Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754636AbZAIDVc (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:21:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753254AbZAIDVW (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:21:22 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:47820 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751661AbZAIDVV (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:21:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 04:35:31 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Harvey Harrison , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Message-ID: <20090109033531.GR496@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1231408718.11687.400.camel@twins> <20090108141808.GC11629@elte.hu> <1231426014.11687.456.camel@twins> <1231434515.14304.27.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <1231444786.5715.8.camel@brick> <4966ABF9.9080409@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4966ABF9.9080409@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1154 Lines: 30 On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Harvey Harrison wrote: > >> > >> We might still try the second or third options, as i think we shouldnt go > >> back into the business of managing the inline attributes of ~100,000 > >> kernel functions. > > > > Or just make it clear that inline shouldn't (unless for a very good reason) > > _ever_ be used in a .c file. > > > > The question is if that would produce acceptable quality code. In > theory it should, but I'm more than wondering if it really will. I actually often use noinline when developing code simply because it makes it easier to read oopses when gcc doesn't inline ever static (which it normally does if it only has a single caller). You know roughly where it crashed without having to decode the line number. I believe others do that too, I notice it's all over btrfs for example. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- 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/