Hi Jerome, What was the rationale for inlining functions radeon_bo_reserve() and radeon_bo_wait()? These functions are called many times (especially radeon_bo_reserve, called 47 times) and they aren't particularly small (especially radeon_bo_wait). I found that un-inlining radeon_bo_wait() saves 187 bytes of code on radeon.o on x86-64: add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 0/3 up/down: 178/-365 (-187) function old new delta radeon_bo_wait - 178 +178 radeon_gem_wait_idle_ioctl 257 157 -100 radeon_gem_busy_ioctl 298 187 -111 radeon_gem_set_domain 251 97 -154 And un-inlining radeon_bo_reserve() saves 2644 bytes of code on radeon.o on x86-64 (2947 if you include the string section): add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 0/38 up/down: 100/-2744 (-2644) function old new delta radeon_bo_reserve - 100 +100 rs600_gart_disable 178 143 -35 radeon_gart_table_vram_free 142 94 -48 r600_wb_enable 657 609 -48 r600_ih_ring_fini 164 116 -48 radeon_ring_fini 189 139 -50 radeon_ib_pool_fini 221 171 -50 r600_suspend 231 181 -50 rv770_fini 262 210 -52 r600_blit_fini 146 94 -52 r600_wb_disable 194 141 -53 radeon_gem_get_tiling_ioctl 263 209 -54 radeon_bo_set_tiling_flags 151 97 -54 rv770_suspend 231 175 -56 radeon_suspend_kms 540 481 -59 radeon_fb_find_or_create_single 1597 1538 -59 rv770_pcie_gart_disable 958 898 -60 rv370_pcie_gart_disable 947 887 -60 radeon_ring_init 382 322 -60 r600_pcie_gart_disable 1405 1345 -60 evergreen_pcie_gart_disable 1020 960 -60 radeon_gem_object_unpin 115 54 -61 radeon_ttm_fini 283 220 -63 radeon_ttm_init 997 929 -68 radeon_gem_object_pin 158 90 -68 radeon_gart_table_vram_pin 243 174 -69 rv770_startup 11065 10995 -70 radeon_bo_list_reserve 126 56 -70 r600_blit_init 850 779 -71 radeonfb_destroy_pinned_object 178 106 -72 r600_startup 3235 3163 -72 radeon_ib_pool_init 546 470 -76 r600_irq_init 2648 2572 -76 r100_wb_fini 281 197 -84 r100_wb_init 580 488 -92 radeon_test_moves 1524 1429 -95 radeon_crtc_set_base 1774 1668 -106 atombios_crtc_set_base 4477 4248 -229 radeon_benchmark_move 1208 974 -234 Would you take a patch un-inlining either or both of these functions? For radeon_bo_reserve(), an alternative would be to remove the error message. After all, we just decided that the same error message was needless in radeon_bo_wait(), maybe the same reasoning applies to radeon_bo_reserve(), in which case the function would become a one-liner which we can legitimately keep inlined. The binary size benefit is slightly smaller (-2294 bytes on x86-64) but the code would be slightly faster (one function call saved.) What do you think? -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
