Message-ID: <Y3YeQMAqCecwrIN1@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 12:42:56 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Richard Biener <rguenther@...e.de>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jan Hubicka <jh@...e.de>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Martin Liska <mliska@...e.cz>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Richard Biener <RGuenther@...e.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] gcc-LTO support for the kernel

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 08:50:59AM +0000, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 08:40:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 12:44, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > this is the first call for comments (and kbuild complaints) for this
> > > > support of gcc (full) LTO in the kernel. Most of the patches come from
> > > > Andi. Me and Martin rebased them to new kernels and fixed the to-use
> > > > known issues. Also I updated most of the commit logs and reordered the
> > > > patches to groups of patches with similar intent.
> > > >
> > > > The very first patch comes from Alexander and is pending on some x86
> > > > queue already (I believe). I am attaching it only for completeness.
> > > > Without that, the kernel does not boot (LTO reorders a lot).
> > > >
> > > > In our measurements, the performance differences are negligible.
> > > >
> > > > The kernel is bigger with gcc LTO due to more inlining.
> > > 
> > > OK, so if I understand this correctly:
> > > - the performance is the same
> > > - the resulting image is bigger
> > > - we need a whole lot of ugly hacks to placate the linker.
> > > 
> > > Pardon my cynicism, but this cover letter does not mention any
> > > advantages of LTO, so what is the point of all of this?
> > 
> > Seconded; I really hate all the ugly required for the GCC-LTO
> > 'solution'. There not actually being any benefit just makes it a very
> > simple decision to drop all these patches on the floor.
> 
> I'd say that instead a prerequesite for the series would be to actually
> enforce hidden visibility for everything not part of the kernel module
> API so the compiler can throw away unused functions.  Currently it has
> to keep everything because with a shared object there might be external
> references to everything exported from individual TUs.

I'm not sure what you're on about; only symbols annotated with
EXPORT_SYMBOL*() are accessible from modules (aka DSOs) and those will
have their address taken. You can feely eliminate any unused symbol.

> There was a size benefit mentioned for module-less monolithic kernels
> as likely used in embedded setups, not sure if that's enough motivation
> to properly annotate symbols with visibility - and as far as I understand
> all these 'required' are actually such fixes.

I'm not seeing how littering __visible is useful or desired, doubly so
for that static hack, that's just a crude work around for GCC LTO being
inferior for not being able to read inline asm.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists