linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] init.h: mark init functions hot instead of cold

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 9 May 2015 02:17:39 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] init.h: mark init functions hot instead of cold

On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 12:45:01AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> attribute((cold)) causes gcc to optimize the function for size rather
> than speed. But since __init functions will be discarded anyway, I
> don't see why memory should be a concern. On the contrary, everybody

It makes the bzImage smaller.
A lot of people on smaller systems are interested in flash size.

> wants their box to boot faster. Using the opposite attribute, hot,
> causes gcc to optimize the functions more aggressively, possibly at
> the expense of larger (.init).text. A completely unscientific test
> showed about 2% faster boot time: I booted a kernel in qemu with and
> without this patch five times each; the boot times were very stable in
> each case, so I think the 2% is ok, but of course only applies to that
> specific .config running in a virtual machine on my hardware.

2% on boot is basically noise.

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/