[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181217235428.GY25620@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:54:28 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest_dynamic.o
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:31:26PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 08:29:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:16:38PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes LTO causes the to be treated like static functions.
> > > >
> > > > I guess noclone is unlikely to be really needed here because these
> > > > functions are unlikely to be cloned.
> > > >
> > > > So as a workaround it could be removed.
> > > >
> > > > But note we have other noclone functions in the tree (like in KVM)
> > > > which actually need it.
> > >
> > > How about we just use the __used attribute then? It seems to have the
> > > same result of preventing IPA optimizations (without the weird side
> > > effect of missing frame pointers).
> >
> > AFAIK we don't have any in-tree LTO, so it can all go in the bin.
> >
> > When/if we get the LTO trainwreck sorted -- which very much includes
> > getting that memory-order-consume fixed -- we can revisit all that.
>
> Ok, then if there are no objections I'll just send a revert of:
>
> dd3dad0d716d ("ftrace: Mark function tracer test functions noinline/noclone")
I object to that.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists