On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:58:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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?
Is what? Writing it like this or open-coding it all? For many archs (indirect) function calls are far more expensive than the typical comparison. -- 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/
