[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140612122546.cfdebdb22bb22c0f767e30b5@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:25:46 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Move __vma_address() to internal.h to be inlined in
huge_memory.c
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:15:40 -0400 Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com> wrote:
> The vma_address() function which is used to compute the virtual address
> within a VMA is used only by 2 files in the mm subsystem - rmap.c and
> huge_memory.c. This function is defined in rmap.c and is inlined by
> its callers there, but it is also declared as an external function.
>
> However, the __split_huge_page() function which calls vma_address()
> in huge_memory.c is calling it as a real function call. This is not
> as efficient as an inlined function. This patch moves the underlying
> inlined __vma_address() function to internal.h to be shared by both
> the rmap.c and huge_memory.c file.
This increases huge_memory.o's text+data_bss by 311 bytes, which makes
me suspect that it is a bad change due to its increase of kernel cache
footprint.
Perhaps we should be noinlining __vma_address()?
--
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