Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753934AbZALIlc (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:41:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751664AbZALIlU (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:41:20 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:46525 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751243AbZALIlT (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:41:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:40:41 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , Harvey Harrison , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , 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 , Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Message-ID: <20090112084041.GA21976@elte.hu> References: <20090109231227.GA25070@elte.hu> <20090110010125.GA31031@elte.hu> <1231549697.5700.7.camel@brick> <49682C05.7030407@zytor.com> <20090111005458.GA5363@elte.hu> <20090112015620.GA6428@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090112015620.GA6428@shareable.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 780 Lines: 21 * Jamie Lokier wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > If it's used once in a single .c file it should be inlined even if > > it's large. > > As Linus has pointed out, because of GCC not sharing stack among > different inlined functions, the above is surprisingly not true. Yes, but note that this has no relevance to the specific case of CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING: GCC can at most decide to inline _less_, not more. I.e. under CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING we can only end up having less stack sharing trouble. Ingo -- 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/