lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning


On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Right. gcc simply doesn't have any way to know how heavyweight an
> asm() statement is

I don't think that's relevant.

First off, gcc _does_ have a perfectly fine notion of how heavy-weight an
"asm" statement is: just count it as a single instruction (and count the
argument setup cost that gcc _can_ estimate).

That would be perfectly fine. If people use inline asms, they tend to use
it for a reason.

However, I doubt that it's the inline asm that was the biggest reason why
gcc decided not to inline - it was probably the constant "switch()"
statement. The inline function actually looks pretty large, if it wasn't
for the fact that we have a constant argument, and that one makes the
switch statement go away.

I suspect gcc has some pre-inlining heuristics that don't take constant
folding and simplifiation into account - if you look at just the raw tree
of the function without taking the optimization into account, it will look
big.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-09 04:59    [W:0.395 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site