Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 08:08:02 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Dmitry Chagin <dchagin@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: pondering pi futexes Message-ID: <CANCZdfqMc-Covfi9ztBgSYURN2EO1ad%2Bjx-jTrFd=SFVi=gRcw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <YPVG8pXO4sNLfJCF@kib.kiev.ua> References: <YNjT90Kq6XPLpgRE@heemeyer.club> <YNmweV1hEQCyRtMJ@kib.kiev.ua> <YN45PbGEbWdjx5JR@heemeyer.club> <YN7vqdfUkheWJ2v3@kib.kiev.ua> <YPUxTWVSVtL4SCW%2B@heemeyer.club> <YPVG8pXO4sNLfJCF@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000df5ee905c77a7717 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 3:35 AM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Even in header files? There I thought it was one of the few places it mattered due to semantic differences... has that changed? Warner --000000000000df5ee905c77a7717--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfqMc-Covfi9ztBgSYURN2EO1ad%2Bjx-jTrFd=SFVi=gRcw>