On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:33:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > static inline void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 > val) > { > if (static_branch_unlikely(&use_numa_spinlock)) > numa_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(lock, val); > else > native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(lock, val); > } That's horrible for the exact reason you state. > Alternatively, we can also call numa_queued_spin_lock_slowpath() in > native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath() if we don't want to increase the code > size of spinlock call sites. Yeah, still don't much like that though, we're littering the fast path of that slow path with all sorts of crap.