[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1158166a0707301059w26aade27r6d6e7b7dec08559c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:59:33 +0100
From: "Denis Vlasenko" <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>,
"Jonathan Campbell" <jon@...dgrounds.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patches for REALLY TINY 386 kernels
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 22:04, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Better just write less bloated code. Perhaps mandatory bloatometer
> runs during -rc*s for kernels with minimal config with public code pig shame lists
> similar to the regression lists are useful. Anyone volunteering?
>
> I suspect there is also much more low hanging fruit of this around.
Thousands "static int flag" variables taking 4 bytes where 1 byte
(actually 1 bit) would suffice. And when you do "flag = 1" -
store insns for bytes are also shorter by 3 bytes, _each_.
Unused code/data linked in
(-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wl,--gc-sections may help)
int global_n; char global_c; int global_m;
and you lose 3 bytes to alignment.
(How to instruct linker to sort sections by alignment or at least for size?
Tried -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wl,--sort-section,alignment
but it seems to only (try to) sort .data, not .data.var_name sections)
Massive inlining. Example: more than 80k of bloat in aic7*xx driver
because of gigantic inlined I/O access functions.
Sadistic alignment by gcc for structs/strings >= 32 bytes.
(gcc 4.2.1 is better, just don't forget -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2)
--
vda
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists