Re: [PATCH] force inlining of spinlock ops

[Ingo Molnar]

* Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 05/12/2015 01:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> Furtermore, what is the size win on x86 defconfig with these options 
> >>> set?
> >>
> >> CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y is in defconfig.
> >>
> >> Size difference for CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE:
> >>
> >>     text    data     bss      dec    hex filename
> >> 12335864 1746152 1081344 15163360 e75fe0 vmlinux.CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
> >> 10373764 1684200 1077248 13135212 c86d6c vmlinux.CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=n
> >>
> >> Decrease by about 19%.
> > 
> > I suspect the 'filename' field wants to be flipped?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > In any case, the interesting measurement would not be -Os comparisons 
> > (which causes GCC to be too crazy), but to see the size effect of your 
> > _patch_ that always-inlines spinlock ops, on plain defconfig and on 
> > defconfig-Os.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
>     text    data     bss      dec    hex filename
> 12335864 1746152 1081344 15163360 e75fe0 vmlinuxO2.before
> 12335930 1746152 1081344 15163426 e76022 vmlinux

Hm, that's a (small) size increase on O2.

That might be a net positive though: because now we've eliminated 
quite a few function calls. Do we know which individual functions 
bloat and which debloat?

>     text    data     bss      dec    hex filename
> 10373764 1684200 1077248 13135212 c86d6c vmlinuxOs.before
> 10363621 1684200 1077248 13125069 c845cd vmlinux

A decrease - which gets exploded on allyesconfig.

So as long as the -O2 case does not get hurt we can do -Os fixes.

I think this needs a bit more work to ensure that the O2 case is a net 
win.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/