Re: [PATCH] i386 spinlocks should use the full 32 bits, not only 8 bits

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> spin_lock is still uninlined.

yes, and that should stay so i believe, for text size reasons. The BTB 
should eliminate most effects of the call+ret itself.

> as is spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_lock_irq()

yes, for them the code length is even higher.

> uninlining spin_lock will probably increase overall text size, but 
> mainly in the out-of-line section.

you mean inlining it again? I dont think we should do it.

> read_lock is out-of-line.  read_unlock is inlined
> 
> write_lock is out-of-line.  write_unlock is out-of-line.

hm, with my patch, write_unlock should be inlined too.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/