From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:32:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20090109173233.GE26290@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <496648C7.5050700@zytor.com> <20090109130057.GA31845@elte.hu> <49675920.4050205@hp.com> <20090109153508.GA4671@elte.hu> <49677CB1.3030701@zytor.com> <20090109084620.3c711aad@infradead.org> <49678095.2030803@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Dirk Hohndel , Ingo Molnar , jim owens , Linus Torvalds , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: > I vote for the, get rid of the current inline, rename __always_inline to There is some code that absolutely requires inline for correctness, like the x86-64 vsyscall code. I would advocate to keep the explicit __always_inline at least there to make it very clear. > inline, and then remove all non needed inlines from the kernel. Most inlines in .c should be probably dropped. > > We'll, probably start adding a lot more noinlines. That would cost you, see the numbers I posted (~4.1% text increase) -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com