[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140509073909.GE4965@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:39:09 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: A reduced Linux network stack for small systems
> >> that is likely working only for the given very limited set of applications.
> >> Kernel function profiling can potentially achieve the same thing.
> >> Profile the kernel with the set of apps and then prune all cold
> >> functions out of kernel.
> >
> > Right, and are Profile-Guided-Optimization results now reproduceable?
> > Better change it to Trace-Guided-Optimization. But yeah, for a
>
> not quite. I'm saying: no extra optimizations, no GCC changes.
> Compile kernel as-is. Most functions have a stub for mcount() already.
> Use it to track whether kernel function was called or not.
> Collect this data in userspace (as perf already does), add few
> more functions that had 'notrace' attribute on them, and feed this into
> special linker that unpacks existing vmlinux, throws away cold functions,
> relocates the rest and here you have tiny vmlinux without recompilation.
It sounds like unstripped kernel will not even fit on the target machine.
If it+application would fit there, you'd have no reason to strip it down...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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