On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:25:02 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:14:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:36:32 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > > wrote: > > > > > include/linux/rbtree_latch.h | 223 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Did it really need to all be inlined? > > Without that you get actual function calls to the less() and comp() > operators. This way GCC can inline the lot even though its function > pointers. > > The typical RB tree user open-codes all this every single time. Is it a good tradeoff? > > How much of this code is unneeded on uniprocessor? > > None, UP has NMIs too. OK. This code is basically required to support perf/ftrace and modules, yes? Presumably small and space-constrained systems aren't using either, so they don't take the hit. However CONFIG_MODULES systems which aren't using perf/ftrace _do_ take a hit. How many systems are we talking here? All non-x86? -- 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/
