[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121105162837.5fdac20c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:28:37 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 19/29] memcg: infrastructure to match an allocation
to the right cache
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:07:35 +0400
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> +static __always_inline struct kmem_cache *
> +memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
I still don't understand why this code uses __always_inline so much.
I don't recall seeing the compiler producing out-of-line versions of
"static inline" functions (and perhaps it has special treatment for
functions which were defined in a header file?).
And if the compiler *does* decide to uninline the function, perhaps it
knows best, and the function shouldn't have been declared inline in the
first place.
If it is indeed better to use __always_inline in this code then we have
a heck of a lot of other "static inline" definitions whcih we need to
convert! So, what's going on here?
--
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