Re: [PATCH][2.6] Completely out of line spinlocks / i386

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> I actually favored making C language spin_lock() (i.e. the goddamn
> thing is declared as a C function void spin_lock(spinlock_t *) and is
> called like a normal C function -- no inline asm or inline C functions
> at all) entrypoints beyond merely conslidating contention loops, but I
> feared that would be too extreme of a reversal of the status quo to
> ever get traction to post it. It did, however, shrink the kernel text
> the most of any of the out-of-line spinlock patches by a large margin,
> something completely absurd-sounding, like 220KB vs. 20KB-60KB. =)

Could you post the patch and the results? It'd also be interesting to see
the function call setup in a number of cases.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/