sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater [clg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> | FYI,
> |
> | I just did a compile test on a 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 kernel with and without
> | the following patches on a x86_64 defconfig (I also had to remove
> | CONFIG_IPV6 for some compile reason) :
>
> Thats a good point.
>
> We have been a bit liberal with "inline" given that lot of the code was
> going to affect the "fast-path" clone().
are are some figures :
with without
text data | text data | filename
1186 4 | 1099 4 | kernel/capability.o
10390 0 | 9941 0 | kernel/exit.o
10611 140 | 10434 140 | kernel/fork.o
10765 72 | 10518 72 | kernel/futex.o
957 56 | 939 56 | kernel/nsproxy.o
3446 2292 | 2350 2228 | kernel/pid.o
13930 45 | 13641 45 | kernel/signal.o
10177 544 | 9819 544 | kernel/sys.o
5083 56 | 4809 56 | fs/proc/array.o
17097 184 | 16748 184 | fs/proc/base.o
51471 1532 | 50474 1532 | fs/proc/proc.o
> Should we shoot for a time/space trade-off or can we make some inlines
> conditional (i.e inline when not configured for say embedded linux) ?
I'm sure the embedded guys will appreciate :)
Thanks !
C.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
