From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@infradead.org>,
"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use -m-omit-leaf-frame-pointer to shrink text size
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:54:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111216085459.GD4170@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111216004843.dbd0405b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:19:16 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> >
> > This patch turns on -momit-leaf-frame-pointer on x86 builds and
> > thus shrinks .text noticeably. On a defconfig-ish kernel:
> >
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 9843902 1935808 3649536 15429246 eb6e7e vmlinux.before
> > 9813764 1935792 3649536 15399092 eaf8b4 vmlinux.after
> >
> > That's 0.3% off text size.
> >
> > The actual win is larger than this percentage suggests: many
> > small, hot helper functions such as find_next_bit(),
> > do_raw_spin_lock() or most of the list_*() functions are leaf
> > functions and are now shorter by 2 instructions.
> >
> > Probably a good chunk of the framepointers related runtime
> > overhead on common workloads is eliminated via this patch, as
> > small leaf functions execute more often than larger parent
> > functions.
> >
> > The call-chains are still intact for quality backtraces and for
> > call-chain profiling (perf record -g), as the backtrace walker
> > can deduct the full backtrace from the RIP of a leaf function
> > and the parent chain.
>
> The only problem I can think of (apart from tickling gcc bugs) is that
> it might break __builtin_return_address(n) for n>0 with frame pointers
> enabled? The only code I can find which does this is
> drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/ and ftrace.
Well, AFAICS it won't really 'break' it but behave as if the
leaf function got inlined into the parent function. I think we
can live with that.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-16 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-16 8:19 Ingo Molnar
2011-12-16 8:48 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-16 8:54 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2011-12-16 8:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-16 9:23 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-12-16 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-16 16:27 ` Richard Henderson
2011-12-16 11:46 ` Jan Beulich
2011-12-16 12:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-16 15:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-12-16 14:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-12-16 14:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111216085459.GD4170@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome