[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150424124905.07e29a3b1392513144cd1568@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:49:05 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enforce function inlining for hot functions
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 23:40:01 +0200 Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net> wrote:
> GCC inlining heuristics are sometimes quizzical. Especially with inline
> assembler constructs GCC seems to have issues. A allyesconfig show a rather
> long list of functions where GCC inlining decisions are questionable (not
> inlined).
I can't reproduce this with either gcc-4.8.2 or gcc-4.4.4. The patch
makes zero difference to `size vmlinux' and a bit of poking around with
nm doesn't show any out-of-lined versions of the functions you
identify.
So. More details, please. How to demonstrate this, gcc versions, etc.
> Furthermore, because the functions are declared with static
> linkage each function is copied n times - and n can be rather high:
>
> atomic_inc: 544 duplicates
> rcu_read_unlock: 453 duplicates
> rcu_read_lock: 383 duplicates
> get_dma_ops: 271 duplicates
> arch_local_irq_restore: 258 duplicates
> atomic_dec: 215 duplicates
> kzalloc: 185 duplicates
> cpumask_check: 157 duplicates
> test_and_set_bit: 156 duplicates
> cpumask_next: 146 duplicates
> list_del: 131 duplicates
> kref_get: 126 duplicates
That's pretty pathetic.
--
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