[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305670666.2915.128.camel@work-vm>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:17:46 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: Add %ptc to safely print a task's comm
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:42 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 10:47 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> > +static noinline_for_stack
>
> I still fail to see why this should be slowed down by noinlining it.
> Care to explain?
Just that I was hesitant to change it without consensus and it follows
the convention of other similarly called functions.
> With my setup, the code below inlined will use 32 bytes of stack. The
> same as %pK case. Uninlined it obviously eats "only" 8 bytes for IP.
Maybe could we defer that discussion into a following patch, which maybe
does a similar analysis on the other noinline_for_stack usage in that
case?
(And I may be dropping the whole series here in a bit, so more debate on
it might be moot)
thanks
-john
--
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