[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150413162308.GB398@x4>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:23:08 +0200
From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Align jump targets to 1 byte boundaries
On 2015.04.12 at 12:14 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> In my (past) experience the main win from -flto is not due to better
> hot/cold decisions, but simply due to more aggressive dead code
> elimination. -flto has less of an effect on code that is actually
> being executed.
>
> Which isn't to be sneered at, but it's far less of a direct effect as
> branch probabilities are, which cut to the core of most hotpaths in
> the kernel.
I did some measurements with gcc-5.1-RC on X86_64 using Andi's latest
LTO kernel patch for 4.0. With my simple monolithic .config the code
size savings are below 1%. That is lower than I've expected.
--
Markus
--
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