Commit e81859f
locking/rwsem: Add __always_inline annotation to __down_write_common() and inlined callers
Apparently despite it being marked inline, the compiler
may not inline __down_write_common() which makes it difficult
to identify the cause of lock contention, as the wchan of the
blocked function will always be listed as __down_write_common().
So add __always_inline annotation to the common function (as
well as the inlined helper callers) to force it to be inlined
so a more useful blocking function will be listed (via wchan).
This mirrors commit 92cc5d0 ("locking/rwsem: Add
__always_inline annotation to __down_read_common() and inlined
callers") which did the same for __down_read_common.
I sort of worry that I'm playing wack-a-mole here, and talking
with compiler people, they tell me inline means nothing, which
makes me want to cry a little. So I'm wondering if we need to
replace all the inlines with __always_inline, or remove them
because either we mean something by it, or not.
Fixes: c995e63 ("locking/rwsem: Fold __down_{read,write}*()")
Reported-by: Tim Murray <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Waiman Long <[email protected]>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]1 parent 9bc2ff8 commit e81859f
1 file changed
+3
-3
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
1297 | 1297 | | |
1298 | 1298 | | |
1299 | 1299 | | |
1300 | | - | |
| 1300 | + | |
1301 | 1301 | | |
1302 | 1302 | | |
1303 | 1303 | | |
| |||
1310 | 1310 | | |
1311 | 1311 | | |
1312 | 1312 | | |
1313 | | - | |
| 1313 | + | |
1314 | 1314 | | |
1315 | 1315 | | |
1316 | 1316 | | |
1317 | 1317 | | |
1318 | | - | |
| 1318 | + | |
1319 | 1319 | | |
1320 | 1320 | | |
1321 | 1321 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments