[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171222001821.2157-2-andi@firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:18:16 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] x86/timer: Don't inline __const_udelay
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
__const_udelay is marked inline, and LTO will happily inline it everywhere
Dropping the inline saves ~44k text in a LTO build.
13999560 1740864 1499136 17239560 1070e08 vmlinux-with-udelay-inline
13954764 1736768 1499136 17190668 1064f0c vmlinux-wo-udelay-inline
Even without LTO I believe marking it noinline documents it correctly.
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/lib/delay.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/delay.c b/arch/x86/lib/delay.c
index 4846eff7e4c8..f5b7f1b3b6d7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/delay.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/delay.c
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ void __delay(unsigned long loops)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__delay);
-inline void __const_udelay(unsigned long xloops)
+void __const_udelay(unsigned long xloops)
{
unsigned long lpj = this_cpu_read(cpu_info.loops_per_jiffy) ? : loops_per_jiffy;
int d0;
--
2.15.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists