[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131008153325.GB16558@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:33:25 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rcusync: introduce struct rcu_sync_ops
On 10/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> I think Linus meant to have rcu_sync_{enter,exit} as inlines with a
> const enum argument for the gp_type.
>
> That said; yes that will generate better code, but also more code, and
> like Steven already argued performance isn't really an issue here since
> we're going to potentially sleep for a rather long time.
Yes, I do not think that we should make them "inline". Plus we need the
non-inline rcu_sync_func() anyway.
Thanks again for the last series you sent.
Oleg.
--
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