Re: [patch 2/3] spinlock: allow inlined spinlocks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > #define __spin_lock_is_small

> > +unsigned long __lockfunc _spin_lock_irqsave_nested(spinlock_t *lock, int subclass)
> > +							__acquires(lock);
> > +
> > +#ifdef __spin_lock_is_small
> > +#define _spin_lock(lock) __spin_lock(lock)
> > +#else
> > +void __lockfunc _spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)		__acquires(lock);
> > +#endif

Dunno - i'm somewhat wary of introducing a 2^28 variability here. 
(although the number of real variations is much lower - but still).

What's the current situation on s390, precisely which of the 28 lock 
functions are a win to be inlined and which ones are a loss? Do you 
have a list/table perhaps?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux