Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:54:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Attilio Rao <attilio@FreeBSD.org> To: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: svn commit: r244046 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <201212090454.qB94sNNZ087134@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Author: attilio Date: Sun Dec 9 04:54:22 2012 New Revision: 244046 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/244046 Log: Add a comment on why inlining critical_enter() may not be a good idea for the general case. Reviewed by: bde MFC after: 1 week Modified: head/sys/kern/kern_switch.c Modified: head/sys/kern/kern_switch.c ============================================================================== --- head/sys/kern/kern_switch.c Sun Dec 9 04:15:51 2012 (r244045) +++ head/sys/kern/kern_switch.c Sun Dec 9 04:54:22 2012 (r244046) @@ -176,6 +176,12 @@ retry: /* * Kernel thread preemption implementation. Critical sections mark * regions of code in which preemptions are not allowed. + * + * It might seem a good idea to inline critical_enter() but, in order + * to prevent instructions reordering by the compiler, a __compiler_membar() + * would have to be used here (the same as sched_pin()). The performance + * penalty imposed by the membar could, then, produce slower code than + * the function call itself, for most cases. */ void critical_enter(void)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201212090454.qB94sNNZ087134>