linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86: page: get

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:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:08:44 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Maksym Planeta <mcsim.planeta@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	namhyung@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: page: get_order() optimization


* Maksym Planeta <mcsim.planeta@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 27/03/2011 at 13:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Just wondering, what's the before/after 'size vmlinux' effect on a 'make 
> > defconfig' x86 kernel? Does the optimization make the kernel smaller as well, 
> > besides making it faster?
> 
> Thank you for advice. I didn't really mentioned it. So without my patch:
> 
> size vmlinux
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> 7915025	1253060	1122304	10290389	 9d04d5	vmlinux
> 
> And with it: 
> 
> size vmlinux
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> 7919150	1251364	1122304	10292818	 9d0e52	vmlinux
> 
> Size increased. But I discovered that if I replace "inline" with
> "__always_inline" in get_order(), size will be following:
> 
> size vmlinux
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> 7914481	1249252	1122304	10286037	 9cf3d5	vmlinux
> 
> And this is less than with same modification in asm-general:
> 
> size vmlinux
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> 7914713	1249268	1122304	10286285	 9cf4cd	vmlinux
> 
> With my patch and "__always_inline" instead of just "inline" size will
> be the smallest.

Weird, that's an unexpected resut.

Have you looked at the disassembly, why does the size increase? I'd expect such 
a straight assembly optimization to result in smaller code: in the non-constant 
case it should be the same size as before, in the constant case it should be 
smaller, because BSR should be smaller than an open-coded search loop, right?

One sidenote, defconfig turns these on:

 CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
 CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y

And some versions of GCC arent very good with these.

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/