From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
davem@davemloft.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: Value of __*{init,exit} anotations?
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:44:12 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1201733052.3292.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080130223219.GT29368@does.not.exist>
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:41:35PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 22:20 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:00:16PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> >...
> > > > __init is possibly justifiable with a few hundred k savings on boot.
> > > > __devinit and the rest are surely killable on the grounds they provide
> > > > little benefit for all the pain they cause.
> > > For the embedded people a few kb here and there is worth it.
> > >
> > > > all __exit seems to do is set us up for unreferenced pointers in
> > > > discarded sections, so could we kill that too?
> > > Again - savings when we build-in the drivers.
> > > And without the checks we see 'funny' linker errors on the architectues
> > > that can continue to add the .exit.text in /DISCARD/
> >
> > Perhaps you have different figures, but my standard kernel linking ones
> > tell me that the discard sections only save tens of k (not hundreds that
> > the init ones save), so I really do think they have no real benefit and
> > land us huge problems of pointer references into discarded sections.
> >
> > I don't deny we can invest large amounts of work to fix our current
> > issues and build large scriptable checks to ensure we keep it fixed ...
> > I'm just asking if, at the end of the day, it's really worth it.
>
> Some people consider it worth it for their memory restricted systems
> and would like to drive the annotations even further. [1]
>
> My experience while fixing section bugs during the last years is that
> the __dev{init,exit}* are actually the main question since they are both
> the majority of annotations and the ones that bring benefits only
> in a case that has become very exotic (CONFIG_HOTPLUG=n).
>
> All the other annotations either both bring value for everyone
> (plain __init* and __exit*) or are nothing normal drivers would
> use (__cpu* and _mem*).
>
> People at linux-arch (Cc'ed) might be better at explaining how often
> CONFIG_HOTPLUG gets used in real-life systems and how big the savings
> are there.
>
> That might be a good basis for deciding whether it's worth it.
I'll certainly buy this. Perhaps killing everything other than __init
and __exit (meaning discardable whether the system is hotplug, suspend
or whatever) might get rid of 90% of the problem while still preserving
90% of the benefits. I think a lot of the issues do come from confusion
over whether it should be __init, __devinint etc .
We can argue later over the benefit of __exit ...
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-30 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-30 20:03 [2.6 patch] scsi/qlogicpti.c section fixes Adrian Bunk
2008-01-30 21:00 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-30 21:20 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-30 21:30 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-30 21:41 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-30 22:00 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-30 22:32 ` Value of __*{init,exit} anotations? Adrian Bunk
2008-01-30 22:44 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2008-01-30 22:50 ` Russell King
2008-01-31 5:42 ` Andi Kleen
2008-01-31 7:44 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-31 15:57 ` [PATCH] kill hotplug init/exit section annotations James Bottomley
2008-01-31 16:11 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-01-31 16:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-31 17:07 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-01-31 17:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-31 17:45 ` Chris Wedgwood
2008-01-31 17:55 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-31 18:32 ` Chris Wedgwood
2008-01-31 18:52 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-01-31 17:48 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-01-31 18:34 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-31 18:48 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-01-31 19:41 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-30 22:28 ` [2.6 patch] scsi/qlogicpti.c section fixes Adrian Bunk
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=1201733052.3292.102.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.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