From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: fresh data was Re: [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was Re: New x86 warning
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:08:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87skjzoqah.fsf_-_@basil.nowhere.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090422220428.GE13896@one.firstfloor.org> (Andi Kleen's message of "Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:04:28 +0200")
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:
>> > Quick test here:
>>
>> How about you just compile the kernel with gcc-3.2 and compare the number
>> of calls to memcpy before-and-after instead? That's the real test.
>
> I waited over 10 minutes for the full vmlinux objdumps to finish. sorry lost
> patience. If someone has a fast disassembler we can try it. I'll leave
> them running over night, maybe there are exact numbers tomorrow.
>
> But from a quick check (find -name '*.o' | xargs nm | grep memcpy) there are
> very little files which call it with the patch, so there's some
> evidence that there isn't a dramatic increase.
I let the objdumps finish over night. On my setup (defconfig + some
additions) there are actually less calls to out of line memcpy/__memcpy
with the patch. I see only one for my defconfig, while there are
~10 without the patch. So it makes very little difference.
The code size savings must come from more efficient code generation
for the inline case. I haven't investigated that in detail though.
So the patch seems like a overall win.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-23 6:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-22 6:46 New x86 warning Jeff Garzik
2009-04-22 7:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 8:45 ` [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was " Andi Kleen
2009-04-22 18:00 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86: use __builtin_memcpy() on 32 bits tip-bot for Andi Kleen
2009-04-22 20:56 ` [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was Re: New x86 warning Linus Torvalds
2009-04-22 21:15 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-22 21:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-22 22:04 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-23 6:08 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2009-04-23 6:36 ` fresh data was " Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 7:37 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-23 6:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 7:43 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-22 23:49 ` Joe Damato
2009-04-23 1:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-23 21:22 ` Joe Damato
2009-04-23 22:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-24 8:44 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-23 6:09 ` Andi Kleen
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=87skjzoqah.fsf_-_@basil.nowhere.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.