[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150728144537.67d46b5714c99d25f0bb33fb@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:45:37 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yury <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Cassidy Burden <cburden@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: Make _find_next_bit helper function inline
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:23:18 +0300 Yury <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
> But I think, before/after for x86 is needed as well.
That would be nice.
> And why don't you consider '__always_inline__'? Simple inline is only a
> hint and
> guarantees nothing.
Yup. My x86_64 compiler just ignores the "inline". When I use
__always_inline, find_bit.o's text goes from 776 bytes to 863.
Hopefully we get something in return for that bloat!
Also, if _find_next_bit() benefits from this then _find_next_bit_le()
will presumably also benefit.
--
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