[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <477FE25D.5070406@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:02:37 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] move WARN_ON() out of line
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> Yeah, that seems reasonable if you're optimising for overall size. Did
> you count the difference of including the function name? We decided not
> to include it for BUG because its usefulness/size tradeoff didn't seem
> terribly important.
in the WARN_ON case it's not there either, based on Ingo's idea we do a kallsyms lookup
of __builtin_return_address(0) .. same data, less memory.
> But my goal was actually to reduce icache pollution, so by my reckoning
> code bytes were much more expensive than data ones, so putting all BUG
> information in a separate section makes those bytes much less
> significant than putting anything inline in code. Also, the trap for
> WARN_ON would be smaller than BUG, because it wouldn't need the spurious
> infinite loop needed to make gcc understand the control flow of a BUG.
>
> On the other hand, you could put the call to out of line warning
> function in a separate section to achieve the same effect.
yeah and gcc even has a compiler option for that. Doubt it's really worth it,
we're still talking a few bytes here ;)
>
> J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists