[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1471885043.3746.60.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:57:23 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skx_edac: Move a few hundred bytes to text from data
using const
On Mon, 2016-08-22 at 09:46 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 05:02:41PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Marking arrays as const makes for smaller data.
> Joe,
Hi Tony
> "a few hundred" seems to be exaggeration.
>
> Before:
> $ size drivers/edac/skx_edac.ko
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 8435 1024 24 9483 250b drivers/edac/skx_edac.ko
>
> After:
> $ size drivers/edac/skx_edac.ko
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 8531 944 24 9499 251b drivers/edac/skx_edac.ko
>
> so "data" was reduced by 80 bytes, but "text" went up by 96.
Yeah, it was a few hundred in an allyesconfig
and I neglected to test the defconfig.
$ size drivers/edac/skx_edac.o* (x86-64)
text data bss dec hex filename
6677 64 24 6765 1a6d drivers/edac/skx_edac.o.defconfig.new
6546 176 24 6746 1a5a drivers/edac/skx_edac.o.defconfig.old
20609 5744 320 26673 6831 drivers/edac/skx_edac.o.new
20273 6064 320 26657 6821 drivers/edac/skx_edac.o.old
> Net increase of 16 (perhaps because some padding for alignment???)
>
> Making read-only data const is a good idea in general, but
> do we want to do it if it *increases* kernel footprint?
Marking all data const that can be const is a good thing.
It reduces exposure and eliminates unintentional overwriting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists