[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ABFA583.6030908@cesarb.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:48:51 -0300
From: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WARN_ONCE(): use bool for boolean flag
Daniel Walker escreveu:
> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 14:24 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
>
>> I took a quick look, and all uses seem to be directly in a boolean
>> context (within an if()), so there would be no problem. Besides, the
>> unlikely() all these macros end with does a double negation, meaning
>> even if it is an int, it will be either 0 or 1 (but I am not sure I am
>> reading these macros right - it seems CONFIG_TRACE_BRANCH_PROFILING
>> turns all unlikely() into likely()).
>>
>> In fact, I was expecting no change at all, since gcc should be able to
>> see it is being treated as a boolean (perhaps I am trusting gcc too
>> much). And to make matters even more confusing, my own test changing all
>> __ret_warn_once to bool and dropping the !! caused an _increase_ of 598
>> bytes (x86-64 defconfig).
>>
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 8100553 1207148 991988 10299689 9d2929 vmlinux.warnret.before
>> 8101119 1207180 991988 10300287 9d2b7f vmlinux.warnret.after
>>
>> (And yes, data increased again.)
>
> Did you have the CONFIG_TRACE_BRANCH_PROFILING option enabled for the
> test above?
CONFIG_BRANCH_PROFILE_NONE=y
CONFIG_TRACE_BRANCH_PROFILING does not even appear in the .config.
> If this was just your regular base line config , then that is odd .. I
> also would think worse case would be no size reduction .. I did my
> compile test on x86-32 btw..
Yes, it is very odd. And I tried compiling a small test module to see if
I could see the changes in the assembly output:
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
void test(int value)
{
WARN_ON_ONCE(value);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(test);
But the assembly output is identical.
I will try looking at the first function which shows a difference in
size (which appears to be handle_irq) and see what I can find.
--
Cesar Eduardo Barros
cesarb@...arb.net
cesar.barros@...il.com
--
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