[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090111203441.GQ26290@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:34:41 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
"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>,
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: gcc inlining heuristics was Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
> Isn't the ioctl switch stack issue a separate GCC bug?
>
> It was/is assigning assigning separate space for local variables which
Was -- i think that got fixed in gcc. But again only in newer versions.
> are mutually exclusive. So instead of the stack footprint of the
> function with the switch() being equal to the largest individual stack
> size of all the subfunctions, it's equal to the _sum_ of the stack sizes
> of the subfunctions. Even though it'll never use them all at the same
> time.
>
> Without that bug, it would have been harmless to inline them all.
True.
-Andi
--
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