linux-kernel - Re: [llvmlinux] percpu | bitmap issue? (Cannot boot on bare metal due to a kernel NULL pointer dereference)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:11:02 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>, sedat.dilek@...il.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [llvmlinux] percpu | bitmap issue? (Cannot boot on bare metal
 due to a kernel NULL pointer dereference)


* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> 
> >I can comment at least a little about the -Os aspect (although not I'm no
> >expert on this in particular).  In general, for _most_ use cases, a kernel
> >compiled with CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE will run slower than one compiled
> >without it.  On rare occasion though, it may actually run faster, the only
> >cases I've seen where this happens are specialized uses that are very memory
> >pressure dependent and run almost entirely in userspace with almost no
> >syscalls (for example math related stuff operating on _very, very big_ (as in,
> >>1 trillion elements) multidimensional matrices, with complex memory
> >constraints), and even then it's usually a miniscule improvement in
> >performance (generally less than 1%, which can of course be significant
> >depending on how long it takes before the improvement).
> 
> Cache footprint depends on size which has a significant impact on
> performance. In our experience the kernel (and any other code) is
> generally faster if optimized for size.

Unfortunately, GCC overdoes -Os generating outright silly code, which makes the 
result generally slower - despite the reduced instruction count and reduced cache 
footprint.

We've recently applied patches to the x86 tree that give us a good chunk of the 
size savings that -Os brings:

  52648e83c9a6 x86: Pack loops tightly as well
  be6cb02779ca x86: Align jump targets to 1-byte boundaries

these two shave about 5% off from the typical distro kernel's size. That's still 
way off the 15%-20% that -Os can muster, but another ~10% are possible by not 
aligning functions to byte boundaries (instead of the default 16 bytes).

So about 70% of the -Os size win is from simple and pure alignment relaxation, not 
from any deeper compiler optimizations.

So LLVM could emulate most of the good effects of -Os by only compressing the 
various alignment parameters - and this would be a pretty safe optimization as 
well.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/