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

[H. Peter Anvin]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> There's none. In fact, it's wrong, unless you _also_ have an extern 
> definition (according to the "new" gcc rules as of back in the days).
> 
> Of course, as long as "inline" really means _always_ inline, it won't 
> matter. So in that sense Ingo is right - we _could_. Which has no bearing 
> on whether we _should_, of course.
> 

I was thinking about experimenting with this, to see what level of
upside it might add.  Ingo showed me numbers which indicate that a
fairly significant fraction of the cases where removing inline helps is
in .h files, which would require code movement to fix.  Hence to see if
it can be automated.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/