From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] noinstr: Use asm_inline() in instrumentation_{begin,end}()
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:30:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z_TeoLQfZA858jk-@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7cb41fe7e87a003fc925164d5cc18efd8e95fcc0.1744098446.git.jpoimboe@kernel.org>
* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org> wrote:
> Use asm_inline() to prevent the compiler from making poor inlining
> decisions based on the length of the objtool annotations.
>
> For a defconfig kernel built with GCC 14.2.1, bloat-o-meter reports a
> 0.18% text size increase:
>
> add/remove: 88/433 grow/shrink: 967/487 up/down: 87579/-52630 (34949)
> Total: Before=19448407, After=19483356, chg +0.18%
>
> Presumably the text growth is due to increased inlining. A net total of
> 345 functions were removed.
Since +0.18% puts this into the 'significant' category of .text size
increases, it would be nice to see a bit more details about the nature
of these function calls removed: were they really explicit calls to
__instrumentation_begin()/end(), or somehow tail-call optimized out, or
something else?
Also, I'm wondering where the 34,949 bytes bloat comes from: with 345
functions removed that's 100 bytes per function? Doesn't sound right.
Also, is the bloat-o-meter output limited to the .text section, or does
it include growth in out-of-line sections too?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-08 8:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-08 8:21 [PATCH RFC 0/5] x86/asm: Improve code generation Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-08 8:21 ` [PATCH RFC 1/5] objtool: Remove ANNOTATE_IGNORE_ALTERNATIVE from CLAC/STAC Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-08 18:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-08 20:45 ` [tip: objtool/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-08 8:21 ` [PATCH RFC 2/5] objtool, x86/hweight: Remove ANNOTATE_IGNORE_ALTERNATIVE Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-08 8:21 ` [PATCH RFC 3/5] noinstr: Use asm_inline() in instrumentation_{begin,end}() Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-08 8:30 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2025-04-08 11:10 ` Uros Bizjak
2025-04-08 16:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-08 8:21 ` [PATCH RFC 4/5] x86/alternative: Improve code generation readability Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-09 14:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-09 17:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-09 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-09 19:51 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-09 21:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-09 21:27 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-09 21:55 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-16 23:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-08 8:21 ` [PATCH RFC 5/5] objtool: " Josh Poimboeuf
2025-04-09 14:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=Z_TeoLQfZA858jk-@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®