[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090109180213.GH26290@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:02:13 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
jim owens <jowens@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
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>, jh@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact
> I think that's the point. gcc will not get it right.
I don't think that's necessary an universal truth. It
can be probably fixed.
> So we need to do it ourselves in the kernel sources.
> We may not like it, but it's the only way to guarantee reproducable
> reliable inline / noinline decisions.
For most things we don't really need it to be reproducable,
the main exception are the inlines in headers.
Universal noinline would also be a bad idea because of its
costs (4.1% text size increase). Perhaps should make it
a CONFIG option for debugging though.
-Andi
>
> /D
>
> --
> Dirk Hohndel
> Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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