On 12/06/2016 01:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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 :/ I am not totally against making mutex_spin_on_owner() an inline function. If you think it is the right way to go, I am OK with that. -Longman _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
