[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140616161804.bb06ed842f59371c031d1252@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:18:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include: kernel.h: rewrite min3, max3 and clamp using
min and max
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:07:22 +0200 Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com> wrote:
> It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
> and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
> here:
>
> ...
>
> Furthermore, after ___make allmodconfig && make bzImage modules___ this is the
> comparison of image and modules sizes:
>
> # Without this patch applied
> $ ls -l arch/x86/boot/bzImage **/*.ko |awk '{size += $5} END {print size}'
> 350715800
>
> # With this patch applied
> $ ls -l arch/x86/boot/bzImage **/*.ko |awk '{size += $5} END {print size}'
> 349856528
We saved nearly a megabyte by optimising min3(), max3() and clamp()?
I'm counting a grand total of 182 callsites for those macros. So the
saving is 4700 bytes per invokation? I don't believe it...
--
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