From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964916AbWGERQk (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:16:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964915AbWGERQk (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:16:40 -0400 Received: from liaag1ad.mx.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.30]:33155 "EHLO liaag1ad.mx.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964916AbWGERQh (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:16:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:12:40 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Arjan van de Ven Message-ID: <200607051314_MC3-1-C43A-5471@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060705102633.GA17975@elte.hu> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:26:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > The rough rule of thumb for inlining is that anything that is larger > than one C statement is probably too large for inlining. (but even > 1-line statements might be too fat at times) x86-64 software optimization guide says: For functions that create fewer than 25 machine instructions once inlined, it is likely that the function call overhead is close to, or more than, the time spent executing the function body. In these cases, function inlining is recommended. Of course you need to consider whether the code is speed-critical to begin with. -- Chuck "You can't read a newspaper if you can't read." --George W. Bush