Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:58:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:58:26 -0500 Received: from vasquez.zip.com.au ([203.12.97.41]:62471 "EHLO vasquez.zip.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:58:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3C96EF17.32C9B8A0@zip.com.au> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:56:07 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-pre2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua CC: Russ Weight , mingo@elte.hu, lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH] Scalable CPU bitmasks In-Reply-To: <20020318140700.A4635@us.ibm.com> <200203190728.g2J7Srq31344@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > On 18 March 2002 20:07, Russ Weight wrote: > > While systems with more than 32 processors are still > > out in the future, these interfaces provide a path for gradual > > code migration. One of the primary goals is to provide current > > functionality without affecting performance. > > Not so far in the future. "7.52 second kernel compile" thread is about > timing kernel compile on the 32 CPU SMP box. The x86 spinlock implementation underflows at 128 CPUs [1]. > I don't know whether BUG() in inlines makes them too big, It does, on all but very recent gcc's. Strings in inlines generally cause vast kernel bloatage. > but _for() _loops_ in inline functions definitely do that. > Here's one of the overgrown inlines: Sigh. There is far too much inlining in Linux. [1] Untested. - - 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/