Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:36:15 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Jason Evans <jasone@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/include mutex.h src/sys/i386/inclu Message-ID: <XFMail.010121173615.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3A6B6581.E8FFB917@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21-Jan-01 Julian Elischer wrote: > Jason Evans wrote: >> >> jasone 2001/01/21 14:34:43 PST >> >> Modified files: >> sys/alpha/include mutex.h >> sys/i386/include mutex.h >> sys/kern kern_mutex.c >> sys/net if.c >> sys/sys mutex.h >> Log: >> Move most of sys/mutex.h into kern/kern_mutex.c, thereby making the mutex >> inline functions non-inlined. Hide parts of the mutex implementation that >> should not be exposed. > > hmmm how much performance difference is there in doing this? > I presume that we lose the optimisation of gcc removing all the unused paths > and tests when the arguments include constants. (I guess this can be > regained by giving differnt kinds of mutexes different names.) > (haven't checked the files, hope I understand what was done correnctly) The flags are going away most likely in the future, resulting in only 1 runtime check to see if the mutex is a spin or sleep mutex. > What is the reasoning? (not complaining, just curious) Inlining all of these can bloat the kernel unfortunately. Jason estimated 650kb of extra code in a non-debug kernel from this when we hit 5.0. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010121173615.jhb>