On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 9:29 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:31 PM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:41 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 3/26/22 01:31, Vipin Sharma wrote: > > > >>> -static void slot_rmap_walk_next(struct slot_rmap_walk_iterator *iterator) > > > >>> +static noinline void > > > >> > > > >> What is the reason to add noinline? > > > > > > > > My understanding is that since this method is called from > > > > __always_inline methods, noinline will avoid gcc inlining the > > > > slot_rmap_walk_next in those functions and generate smaller code. > > > > > > > > > > Iterators are written in such a way that it's way more beneficial to > > > inline them. After inlining, compilers replace the aggregates (in this > > > case, struct slot_rmap_walk_iterator) with one variable per field and > > > that in turn enables a lot of optimizations, so the iterators should > > > actually be always_inline if anything. > > > > > > For the same reason I'd guess the effect on the generated code should be > > > small (next time please include the output of "size mmu.o"), but should > > > still be there. I'll do a quick check of the generated code and apply > > > the patch. > > > > > > Paolo > > > > > > > Let me know if you are still planning to modify the current patch by > > removing "noinline" and merge or if you prefer a v2 without noinline. > > Hi Paolo, > > Any update on this patch? > Hi Paolo, Still waiting for your response on this patch :) Please let me know if you prefer v2 (without noinline) or you will merge this patch without noinline from your side. If there is any concern or feedback which I can address please let me know. Thanks Vipin Sharma
