[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <048fded745634e369fa2646f87a05ec4@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:09:19 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Joe Perches' <joe@...ches.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>
CC: "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] staging: wfx: make a const array static, makes object
smaller
From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 17 October 2020 01:12
>
> On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 23:33 +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >
> > Don't populate const array filter_ies on the stack but instead
> > make it static. Makes the object code smaller by 261 bytes.
> >
> > Before:
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 21674 3166 448 25288 62c8 drivers/staging/wfx/sta.o
> >
> > After:
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 21349 3230 448 25027 61c3 drivers/staging/wfx/sta.o
>
> Thanks.
>
> It's odd to me it's so large a change as it's only
> 24 bytes of initialization. (3 entries, each 8 bytes)
Perhaps the 'stack protector' crap?
Interestingly, loading the data from the 'readonly' section
is probably a data cache miss.
Which might end up being slower than the extra code to
update the on-stack data.
The extra code might get prefetched...
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists