[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <555D8E4E.9030109@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:50:38 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
CC: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
Aaron Sierra <asierra@...-inc.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi: Deiline large functions
On 05/20/2015 08:56 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:58:40PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> With this .config: http://busybox.net/~vda/kernel_config,
>> after uninlining these functions have sizes and callsite counts
>> as follows:
>
> Most of this is probably good, thanks. But I'm curious about one:
>
>> cfi_udelay(): 74 bytes, 26 callsites
>
> ^^ This is pretty dead-simple. If it's generating bad code, we might
> look at fixing it up instead. Almost all of its call sites are with
> constant input, so it *should* just become:
>
> udelay(1);
> cond_resched();
>
> in most cases. For the non-constant cases, we might still do an
> out-of-line implementation. Or maybe we just say it's all not worth it,
> and we just stick with what you have. But I'd like to consider
> alternatives to out-lining this one.
You want to consider not-deinlining (IOW: speed-optimizing)
a *fixed time delay function*?
Think about what delay functions do...
--
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