| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20031228075426.GB24351@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312280017060.2274@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH-2.6.0-tiny] "uninline" {lock,release}_sock, Linus Torvalds |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH-2.6.0-tiny] "uninline" {lock,release}_sock, Matt Mackall |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH-2.6.0-tiny] "uninline" {lock,release}_sock, Linus Torvalds |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH-2.6.0-tiny] "uninline" {lock,release}_sock, Matt Mackall |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |