Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:22:00 +0000
From:      Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
To:        Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
Cc:        src-committers@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Florian Smeets <flo@freebsd.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@freebsd.org>, svn-src-projects@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r238907 - projects/calloutng/sys/kern
Message-ID:  <CAJ-FndDqdjf5fZKVzNbCTLScUkYXSkptUJBsjd0qm57eyNAUeQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121030043922.H8166@besplex.bde.org>
References:  <201207301350.q6UDobCI099069@svn.freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndBj8tpC_BJXs_RH8sG2TBG8yA=Lxu3-GTVT9Ap_zOCuVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndDnO7wjnWPV0tTu%2BUGHjsxa3YDarMxmyei3ZmjLAFvRkQ@mail.gmail.com> <201207301732.33474.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndD5EO12xsWOAe6u0EvX00q33wxO4OivnGjzj0=T2Oe8uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCRg0UCThFkatp=tw7rUWWCvhsApLE=iztLpxpGBC1F9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndBqV2uD8Th9ePtxyJwhMAPzY3AXA5cQ7HszLp=%2BfSpHTA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndDPLmkpAJeGVN2wgbhdgHYezyUV-PPvH9e-CA7Go7HG3A@mail.gmail.com> <20121029155136.O943@besplex.bde.org> <CAJ-FndAyPVB8VS%2BzNZTUfVhSp9hSOZOjamBwxhhikq3gSMfs3g@mail.gmail.com> <20121030014250.D5191@besplex.bde.org> <CAJ-FndDcFBJsO4wcYc%2BK_B8etD27MPG9dheXJkFz0UGJK9pF9w@mail.gmail.com> <20121030043922.H8166@besplex.bde.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/29/12, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Attilio Rao wrote:
>

[ trimm ]
>
> The above is mostly about -current.  My previous mail discussed why
> uninlining mtx_lock/unlock() doesn't work so well.  It is because these
> macros are shorter and don't make unconditional function calls, so
> inlining of them has better chances of improving their efficiency, and
> in fact does.

Again you are mentioning mtx_lock/unlock() but this has nothing to do
with them, this is about mtx_lock_spin().
However, I quite see your point and honestly I always thought that
inlining mtx_lock_spin() wasn't really useful because of the function
call themselves from spinlock_enter().

However, in order to get to a version which *doesn't* inline them we
should have a clear win which I don't think it is there (this is too
dependent by the arch), so I would say to stick with what the current
code does.

Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndDqdjf5fZKVzNbCTLScUkYXSkptUJBsjd0qm57eyNAUeQ>