Re: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?

[Jiri Kosina]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:

> At some point -- but that was before queued locks -- I noticed that for 
> i386 spin unlocks the call sequence for the sub function is actually 
> larger in code than the actual spin unlock operation and for x86-64 it 
> was about the same. 

spin unlocks seem to be properly inlined anyway, so that should be fine. 
My concern here is the non-inlining of spin locks, for which I don't think 
your argument above is also valid, right?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
--
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/