[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707241246130.3607@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc1: BUG_ON in kmap_atomic_prot()
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > But do we
> > care so much that it's worth inlining something like buffered_rmqueue()?
> >...
>
> Where is the problem with having buffered_rmqueue() inlined?
In this case, it was a pain to just even try to find the call chain, or
read the asm.
I would encourage lots of kernel hackers to read the assembler code gcc
generates. I suspect people being aware of code generation issues (and
writing their code with that in mind) is a *much* bigger performance
impact than gcc inlining random functions.
So maybe I'm old-fashioned and crazy, but "readability of the asm result"
actually is a worthwhile goal. Not because we care directly, but because
I'd like to encourage people to do it, due to the *indirect* benefits.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists