netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH-2.6.0-tiny] "uninline" {lock,release}_sock

To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-2.6.0-tiny] "uninline" {lock,release}_sock
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:23:29 -0800
Cc: acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312280017060.2274@home.osdl.org>
References: <20031228075426.GB24351@conectiva.com.br> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312280017060.2274@home.osdl.org>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Function calls aren't all that expensive, especially with FASTCALL() etc 
> to show that you don't have to follow the common calling conventions. 
> Right now I think FASTCALL() only matters on x86, but some other 
> architectures could make it mean "smaller call clobbered list" or similar.
> 
> Have you benchmarked with the smaller kernel? 

To be honest I think {lock,release}_sock() should both be uninlined
always.

It almost made sense to inline these things before the might_sleep()
was added, now it definitely makes no sense.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>