[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090112084041.GA21976@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:40:41 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.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>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
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>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
* Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > If it's used once in a single .c file it should be inlined even if
> > it's large.
>
> As Linus has pointed out, because of GCC not sharing stack among
> different inlined functions, the above is surprisingly not true.
Yes, but note that this has no relevance to the specific case of
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING: GCC can at most decide to inline _less_, not
more. I.e. under CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING we can only end up having less
stack sharing trouble.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists