From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964835AbbJ0PZS (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:25:18 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:42087 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932274AbbJ0PZR (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:25:17 -0400 Message-Id: <1445959516.1395310.421591905.57DE155F@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: 3jsHLJm7S43PM2PSxFXGJtDukrD8VsUSSoeUAlCLEv18 1445959516 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Denys Vlasenko Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Oleg Nesterov MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-25d3ec43 In-Reply-To: References: <1445957749.1388742.421558841.29441B00@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: Re: Inline hunt results for 4.3.0-rc1 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:25:16 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 16:17, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 15:32, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > >> I have created a set of semi-automated scripts which look for > >> large inlines in the kernel. > >> > >> Recently I taught it to even generate "git format-patch" patches > >> (unfortunately, only for inlines in *.c files, not *.h), > >> and here are they for 4.3.0-rc1 - i.e. current Linus tree. > >> > >> Submitting 300+ patches separately would amount to spamming, > >> instead I encourage people to take a look at the patches > >> on the Web: > >> > >> http://busybox.net/~vda/inline_hunt/4.3.0-rc1/ > >> http://busybox.net/~vda/inline_hunt/4.3.0-rc1/README > >> > >> and in particular, at the set of most juicy patches, each of which > >> shaves off more than 1000 bytes off its *.c module: > >> > >> http://busybox.net/~vda/inline_hunt/4.3.0-rc1/patch_saves1000/ > > > > Does gcc -finline-limit=2000 somehow has the same effect? > > I'm afraid that's not a solution. Ok, thank you. > Any compiler-option-based fix would only work for inlines in *.c > files, but at the same time it would replicate inlines in *.h files > many times (once per module which calls the "auto-deinlined" inline). Do your patches also detect functions which are in Header files with static inline and we take their address often? Maybe dst_output(_sk) could be an example? Bye, Hanes