Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

[Steven Rostedt]

>  - Headers could probably go back to 'extern inline' again. At not small 
>    expense - we just finished moving to 'static inline'. We'd need to 
>    guarantee a library instantiation for every header include file - this 
>    is an additional mechanism with additional introduction complexities 
>    and an ongoing maintenance cost.

I thought the "static inline" in headers should be more of a "always 
inline". As Andrew Morton keeps yelling at me to use static inline instead 
of macros ;-)

I do not see the point in the functions in the headers needing to have 
their "inlines" removed.

> 
>  - 'static inline' functions in .c files that are not used cause no build 
>    warnings - while if we change them to 'static', we get a 'defined but
>    not used' warning. Hundreds of new warnings in the allyesconfig builds.

Perhaps that's a good thing to see what functions are unused in the 
source.

> 
> I know that because i just have removed all variants of 'inline' from all 
> .c files of the kernel, it's a 3.5MB patch:
> 
>    3263 files changed, 12409 insertions(+), 12409 deletions(-)
> 
> x86 defconfig comparisons:
> 
>       text    filename
>    6875817    vmlinux.always-inline                       (  0.000% )
>    6838290    vmlinux.always-inline+remove-c-inlines      ( -0.548% )
>    6794474    vmlinux.optimize-inlining                   ( -1.197% )
> 
> So the kernel's size improved by half a percent. Should i submit it?

Are there cases that are "must inline" in that patch? Also, what is the 
difference if you do vmlinux.optimize-remove-c-inlines? Is there a 
difference there?

-- Steve

--
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/