[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5551FC76.40000@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 15:13:26 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] force inlining of spinlock ops
On 05/12/2015 01:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Furtermore, what is the size win on x86 defconfig with these options
>>> set?
>>
>> CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y is in defconfig.
>>
>> Size difference for CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE:
>>
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 12335864 1746152 1081344 15163360 e75fe0 vmlinux.CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
>> 10373764 1684200 1077248 13135212 c86d6c vmlinux.CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=n
>>
>> Decrease by about 19%.
>
> I suspect the 'filename' field wants to be flipped?
Yes.
> In any case, the interesting measurement would not be -Os comparisons
> (which causes GCC to be too crazy), but to see the size effect of your
> _patch_ that always-inlines spinlock ops, on plain defconfig and on
> defconfig-Os.
Here it is:
text data bss dec hex filename
12335864 1746152 1081344 15163360 e75fe0 vmlinuxO2.before
12335930 1746152 1081344 15163426 e76022 vmlinux
text data bss dec hex filename
10373764 1684200 1077248 13135212 c86d6c vmlinuxOs.before
10363621 1684200 1077248 13125069 c845cd vmlinux
--
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