[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260118225802.5e658c2a@pumpkin>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 22:58:02 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-kernel
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler_types: Introduce inline_for_performance
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 11:47:24 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:24:48 +0000 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > inline keyword is often ignored by compilers.
> >
> > We need something slightly stronger in networking fast paths
> > but __always_inline is too strong.
> >
> > Instead, generalize idea Nicolas used in commit d533cb2d2af4
> > ("__arch_xprod64(): make __always_inline when optimizing for performance")
> >
> > This will help CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y users keeping
> > their kernels small.
>
> This is good. __always_inline is ambiguous and the name lacks
> commentary value.
>
> If we take away __always_inline's for-performance role then what
> remains? __always_inline is for tricky things where the compiler needs
> to be coerced into doing what we want?
>
> IOW, I wonder if we should take your concept further, create more
> fine-grained controls over this which have self-explanatory names.
>
>
>
> mm/ alone has 74 __always_inlines, none are documented, I don't know
> why they're present, many are probably wrong.
>
> Shit, uninlining only __get_user_pages_locked does this:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 115703 14018 64 129785 1faf9 mm/gup.o
> 103866 13058 64 116988 1c8fc mm/gup.o-after
The next questions are does anything actually run faster (either way),
and should anything at all be marked 'inline' rather than 'always_inline'.
After all, if you call a function twice (not in a loop) you may
want a real function in order to avoid I-cache misses.
I've had to mark things that are called once 'always_inline', and
also 'big looking' functions that are called with constants and optimise
to almost nothing.
But I'm sure there is a lot of code that is 'inline_for_bloat' :-)
(Don't talk to me about C++ class definitions....)
On 32bit you probably don't want to inline __arch_xprod_64(), but you do
want to pass (bias ? m : 0) and may want separate functions for the
'no overflow' case (if it is common enough to worry about).
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists