From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268236AbUHLBgy (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:36:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268293AbUHLBgy (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:36:54 -0400 Received: from dragnfire.mtl.istop.com ([66.11.160.179]:12505 "EHLO dsl.commfireservices.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268350AbUHLBdl (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:33:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:37:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Keith Owens , Linus Torvalds , Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , Matt Mackall Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.6] Completely out of line spinlocks / i386 In-Reply-To: <20040812010115.GY11200@holomorphy.com> Message-ID: References: <23701.1092268910@ocs3.ocs.com.au> <20040812010115.GY11200@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.