Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> - Perhaps we could introduce a name for the first category: __must_inline? 
>   __should_inline? Not because it wouldnt mean 'always', but because it is 
>   'always inline' for another reason than the correctless __always_inline.

I think you're thinking about this the wrong way.

"inline" is a pretty damn strong hint already.

If you want a weaker one, make it _weaker_ instead of trying to use 
superlatives like "super_inline" or "must_inline" or whatever.

So I'd suggest:

 - keep "inline" as being a strong hint. In fact, I'd suggest it not be a 
   hint at all - when we say "inline", we mean it. No ambiguity 
   _anywhere_, and no need for idiotic "I really really REALLY mean it" 
   versions.

 - add a "maybe_inline" or "inline_hint" to mean that "ok, compiler, maybe 
   this is worth inlining, but I'll leave the final choice to you".

That would get rid of the whole rationale for OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y, because 
at that point, it's no longer potentially a correctness issue. At that 
point, if we let gcc optimize things, it was a per-call-site conscious 
decision.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/