Summary:
This diff takes an even more aggressive way to inline the functions. A decent rule that I followed is "not inline a function if it is more than 10 lines long."
Normally optimizing code by inline is ugly and hard to control, but since one of our usecase has significant amount of CPU used in functions from coding.cc, I'd like to try this diff out.
Test Plan:
1. the size for some .o file increased a little bit, but most less than 1%. So I think the negative impact of inline is negligible.
2. As the regression test shows (ran for 10 times and I calculated the average number)
Metrics Befor After
========================================================================
rocksdb.build.fillseq.qps 426595 444515 (+4.6%)
rocksdb.build.memtablefillrandom.qps 121739 123110
rocksdb.build.memtablereadrandom.qps 1285103 1280520
rocksdb.build.overwrite.qps 125816 135570 (+9%)
rocksdb.build.readrandom_fillunique_random.qps 285995 296863
rocksdb.build.readrandom_memtable_sst.qps 1027132 1027279
rocksdb.build.readrandom.qps 1041427 1054665
rocksdb.build.readrandom_smallblockcache.qps 1028631 1038433
rocksdb.build.readwhilewriting.qps 918352 914629
Reviewers: haobo, sdong, igor
CC: leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D15291