[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120820074835.GA6710@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:48:35 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mmarek@...e.cz,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, JBeulich@...e.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: Link Time Optimization support for the kernel
* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> This rather large patchkit enables gcc Link Time Optimization (LTO)
> support for the kernel.
>
> With LTO gcc will do whole program optimizations for
> the whole kernel and each module. This increases compile time,
> but can generate faster code.
By how much does it increase compile time?
How much faster does kernel code get?
Last time I checked LTO optimizations (half a year ago) it
resulted in significantly slower build times.
I tried out and measured the LTO speedups and was less than
impressed by them - a lot of build time increase for not much
increase in performance. There was also visible, ongoing
maintenance cost.
The combination of these seemed like a show-stopper.
It's obviously an optimization feature we should consider, but
we really need hard numbers to make a cost/benefit analysis.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists