On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 22:18 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> ... as we clearly inline mcs_spin_lock() now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> index 23e89c5..4d60986 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h
> @@ -56,9 +56,6 @@ do {
> \
> * If the lock has already been acquired, then this will proceed to spin
> * on this node->locked until the previous lock holder sets the node->locked
> * in mcs_spin_unlock().
> - *
> - * We don't inline mcs_spin_lock() so that perf can correctly account for the
> - * time spent in this lock function.
> */
> static inline
> void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
Likewise, I'm wondering if we should make this function noinline so that
"perf can correctly account for the time spent in this lock function".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
