[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140728165426.GT19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:54:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, mingo@...nel.org, aswin@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:49:35AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 22:18 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > ... as we clearly inline mcs_spin_lock() now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
> > ---
> > kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> > index 23e89c5..4d60986 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> > @@ -56,9 +56,6 @@ do { \
> > * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin
> > * on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked
> > * in mcs_spin_unlock().
> > - *
> > - * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
> > - * time spent in this lock function.
> > */
> > static inline
> > void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>
> Likewise, I'm wondering if we should make this function noinline so that
> "perf can correctly account for the time spent in this lock function".
What's that about anyhow? Surely perf can see where IPs come from? DWARF
has inline support after all.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists