Re: pondering pi futexes

From: Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 08:08:02 -0600
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 3:35 AM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel_at_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
Received on Mon Jul 19 2021 - 14:08:02 UTC

Original text of this message