On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 11:03:28AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > The mutex_spin_on_owner() function was originally marked noinline > because it could be a major consumer of CPU cycles in a contended lock. > Having it shown separately in the perf output will help the users have a > better understanding of what is consuming all the CPU cycles. So I would > still like to keep it this way. ah!, I tried to dig through history but couldn't find a reason for it. > > If you have concern about additional latency for non-ww_mutex calls, one > alternative can be: That's pretty horrific :/ _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
