On Thursday, Jul 24, 2003, at 23:22 US/Central, Otto Solares wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:20:00PM +0200, J.A. Magallon wrote:
>> Or you just define must_inline, and let gcc inline the rest of
>> 'inlines',
>> based on its own rule of functions size, adjusting the parameters
>> to gcc to assure (more or less) that what is inlined fits in cache of
>> the processor one is building for...
>> (this can be hard, help from gcc hackers will be needed...)
>
> IMO just a CONFIG_INLINE_FUNCTIONS will work, if you
> want to conserve space in detriment of speed simply
> don't select this option, else you have speed but
> a big kernel.
Inlines don't always help performance (depending on cache sizes, branch
penalties, frequency of code access...), but they do always increase
code size.
I believe the point Alan was trying to make is not that we should have
more or less inlines, but we should have smarter inlines. I.E. don't
just inline a function to "make it fast"; think about the implications
(and ideally measure it, though I think that becomes problematic when
so many other factors can affect the benefit of a single inlined
function). The specific example he gave was inlining code on the fast
path, while accepting branch/cache penalties for non-inlined code on
the slow path.
-- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:25 EST