Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755399AbZAINGH (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:06:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752462AbZAINFv (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:05:51 -0500 Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com ([148.87.113.125]:56575 "EHLO rgminet13.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752176AbZAINFu (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:05:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning From: Chris Mason To: Andi Kleen Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Harvey Harrison , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich In-Reply-To: <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> <20090109033531.GR496@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:05:02 -0500 Message-Id: <1231506302.21333.7.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt703.oracle.com [141.146.40.81] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.49674B83.0129:SCFSTAT928724,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1481 Lines: 35 On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 04:35 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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. For btrfs it was mostly about stack size at first. I'd use checkstack.pl and then run through the big funcs and figure out how they got so huge. It was almost always because gcc was inlining something it shouldn't, so I started using it on most funcs. -chris -- 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/