Re: [RFC][PATCH] inline a few tiny functions in init/initramfs.c

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 23:53:26 EST


Con Kolivas wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:26, Jesper Juhl wrote:

A few functions in init/initramfs.c are so simple that I don't see why
*any* point in them having to bear the cost of a function call.
Wouldn't something like the patch below make sense ?


-static void __init *malloc(size_t size)
+static inline void __init *malloc(size_t size)
{
return kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);


maybe it looks like it would, but kmalloc looks like this:

85 static inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, int flags)
86 {
87 if (__builtin_constant_p(size)) {
88 int i = 0;
89 #define CACHE(x) \
90 if (size <= x) \
91 goto found; \
92 else \
93 i++;
94 #include "kmalloc_sizes.h"
95 #undef CACHE
96 {
97 extern void __you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much(void);
98 __you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much();
99 }
100 found:
101 return kmem_cache_alloc((flags & GFP_DMA) ?
102 malloc_sizes[i].cs_dmacachep :
103 malloc_sizes[i].cs_cachep, flags);
104 }
105 return __kmalloc(size, flags);
106 }

which is not a one liner to inline at all



Actually, this is even better, because the inline 'malloc' should be
able to propogate the builtin_constantness of 'size' while an out of
line version cannot.

IMO the best policy is not to second guess the API implementor's
choice of inline / noinline. That is - if kmalloc was too big to
inline then it should be fixed in kmalloc or another interface
introduced.

Nick


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -
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/