From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:49160 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726330AbfLBKdD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 05:33:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:32:48 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/7] Speed booting by sorting ORC unwind tables at build time Message-ID: <20191202103248.GB2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20191128110206.2107-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191128110206.2107-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Shile Zhang Cc: Josh Poimboeuf , Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 07:01:59PM +0800, Shile Zhang wrote: > This series refactored the original sortextable tools, add ORC unwind > tables sort at build time. > > To sort the ORC unwind tables(.orc_unwind & .orc_unwind_ip) can save > about 100ms in my test ENV (2C4G VM w/ Xeon 2.5GHz CPU). > It costs about 30ms sort by new sorttable tool. IIRC from your previous emails the new build-time sort is actually shorter than that, so even for single build+run scenarios we win. The code looks good to me, so: Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Who it going to apply this? I suppose we could take it through -tip, like we do with all x86 and objtool related bits.