[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170629150652.r2dl7f3pzp6cj2i7@treble>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:06:52 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] objtool: add undwarf debuginfo generation
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:46:18PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > Plus, shouldn't we use __packed for 'struct undwarf' to minimize the
> > > structure's size (to 6 bytes AFAICS?) - or is optimal packing of the main
> > > undwarf array already guaranteed on every platform with this layout?
> >
> > Ah yes, it should definitely be packed (assuming that doesn't affect performance
> > negatively).
>
> So if I count that correctly that should shave another ~1MB off a typical ~4MB
> table size?
Here's what my Fedora kernel looks like *before* the packed change:
$ eu-readelf -S vmlinux |grep undwarf
[15] .undwarf_ip PROGBITS ffffffff81f776d0 011776d0 0012d9d0 0 A 0 0 1
[16] .undwarf PROGBITS ffffffff820a50a0 012a50a0 0025b3a0 0 A 0 0 1
The total undwarf data size is ~3.5MB.
There are 308852 entries of two parallel arrays:
* .undwarf (8 bytes/entry) = 2470816 bytes
* .undwarf_ip (4 bytes/entry) = 1235408 bytes
If we pack undwarf, reducing the size of the .undwarf entries by two
bytes, it will save 308852 * 2 = 617704.
So the savings will be ~600k, and the typical size will be reduced to ~3MB.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists