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

[Andrew Morton]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 
> * 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.

The old

	lock; decb
	js <different section>
	...

was pretty good.

> > 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.
> 

So it is.  foo_unlock_irq() isn't though.
-
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/