[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181004090128.GA21864@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:01:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions
* Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
> Finally, note that it’s not as if the binary always becomes smaller.
> Overall, with the full patch-set it is slightly bigger. But still, that’s
> how it was supposed to be if gcc wasn’t doing things badly.
So what I cited was the changelog for the refcount patch, which according to your
measurements reduced kernel image size.
For other patches where size grew I left that text intact.
And yes, in this particular case a slight increase in kernel size might actually be
beneficial, as we get a lot more straight-line execution in exchange. So this is
not a show-stopper property as long as the bloat isn't large.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists