Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:33:38 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Dmitry Chagin <dchagin@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pondering pi futexes Message-ID: <YPVG8pXO4sNLfJCF@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <YPUxTWVSVtL4SCW%2B@heemeyer.club> References: <YNjT90Kq6XPLpgRE@heemeyer.club> <YNmweV1hEQCyRtMJ@kib.kiev.ua> <YN45PbGEbWdjx5JR@heemeyer.club> <YN7vqdfUkheWJ2v3@kib.kiev.ua> <YPUxTWVSVtL4SCW%2B@heemeyer.club>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 11:01:17AM +0300, Dmitry Chagin wrote: > Hi, thanks for the reply, I mostly finished, > the new futex impl is fully based on the umtx code, one question before review. > some umtx API, which is needed for futexes, inlined, like > umtxq_busy/unbusy, umtxq_lock/unlock, umtx_pi_alloc/pi_free, etc.. > For now I moved such API to the umtx header, but as far as I understand > compilers are smart enough now to optimize code without suggestions. > Maybe it's time to drop inline hint? > May be. It is impossible to provide a justified answer without looking at the generated code, with/without inline. But usually yes, inline does not make a difference for not too large static functions.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YPVG8pXO4sNLfJCF>