linux-kernel - Re: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:33:59 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?

* Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:

> > What is the reason for this asymetry? Shouldn't the acquiring 
> > functions be implemented in the very same way? Or at least, 
> > shouldn't all the __lockfunc functions be inlined?
> 
> i.e. is there any particular reason why we don't have something like 
> the patch below (implemented for all the lock variants of course, this 
> is just to demonstrate what I mean)?

IIRC the main reason we decided to uninline them was image size. So i'd 
suggest for you to check how this change impacts vmlinux size (on both 
64-bit and 32-bit), a typical distro config (or allyesconfig with lock 
debugging disabled).

If you do the test on x86.git/latest you'll also have the 
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y and CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y combination 
as well, which generates the most compact x86 kernel image ever.

	Ingo
--
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/