[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8a36925-2965-1dae-da01-5d06ba6747c8@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:12:07 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com
Cc: nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, trix@...hat.com,
corbet@....net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86: Avoid relocation information in final vmlinux
On 3/20/23 05:10, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> The issue is then that the collected vmlinux file and hence distribution
> packages end up unnecessarily large because of this extra data. The
> following is a size comparison of vmlinux v6.0 with and without the
> relocation information:
> | Configuration | With relocs | Stripped relocs |
> | x86_64_defconfig | 70 MB | 43 MB |
> | +CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO | 818 MB | 367 MB |
>
> Optimize a resulting vmlinux by adding a postlink step that splits the
> relocation information into vmlinux.relocs and then strips it from the
> vmlinux binary.
When I saw that this adds a postlink step, I read that as, "adds another
step to the unbearably slow single-threaded part of kernel builds". :)
But, here's one data point that made me feel a lot better. Using a
random .config:
> https://sr71.net/~dave/intel/config-reloctest
the builds get a _bit_ slower, going from 37.0s->37.7s. This is pretty
arbitrary of course, using my compiler on my hardware, so YMMV. But,
for me, this seems like a reasonable tradeoff given the space savings.
I'd be curious what other people are seeing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists