[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090109171324.GA29587@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:13:25 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: jim owens <jowens@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y
impact
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:03:12AM -0500, jim owens wrote:
> They also know inlining may increase program object size.
> That inlining will reduce object size on many architectures
> if the function is small is just a happy side effect to them.
The problem is that the threshold for that is architecture specific.
While e.g. x86 has relatively low overhead of prologue/epilogue other
architectures like s390 have enormous overhead. So handling this in
the compiler would be optimal, but it would need at least whole-program
optimization and a compiler aware of the inline assembly to get it
half-way right.
--
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