From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@colin2.muc.de>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>,
torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, rth@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use -fno-unit-at-a-time if gcc supports it
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:59:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030905175938.GA29353@gtf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030905172715.GA80302@colin2.muc.de>
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:27:15PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I'm not sure that is that good an idea. When I was still hacking
> TCP I especially moved some stuff out-of-line in the fast path to avoid
> register pressure. Otherwise gcc would inline rarely used sub functions
> and completely mess up the register allocation in the fast path.
> Of course just a call alone messes up the registers somewhat because
> of its clobbers, but a full inlining is usually worse.
[...]
> I suspect that is true for a lot of core kernel code - everything
> that is worth inlining is already inlined and for the rest it doesn't matter.
Definitely , agreed. In fact, we are moving in the opposite direction:
looking into what we can un-inline...
> On the other hand a lot of driver code seems to be written without
> manual consideration for inline. For that it may be worth it. But then
> I would consider core kernel code to be more important than driver
> code.
Modern network drivers seem fairly aware of it ;-)
> Also I fear cross module inlining would expose a lot of latent bugs
> (missing barriers etc.) when the optimizer becomes more aggressive.
> I'm not saying this would be a bad thing, just that it may be a lot
> of work to fix (both for compiler and kernel people)
Agreed.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-05 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-05 0:47 [PATCH] Use -fno-unit-at-a-time if gcc supports it Andi Kleen
2003-09-05 1:05 ` Aaron Lehmann
2003-09-05 1:24 ` Andi Kleen
2003-09-05 5:37 ` Jan Hubicka
2003-09-05 17:27 ` Andi Kleen
2003-09-05 17:59 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2003-09-06 7:08 ` Jan Hubicka
2003-09-05 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-09-05 15:17 ` Andreas Jaeger
2003-09-05 16:16 ` Robert Love
2003-09-05 16:10 ` Andreas Jaeger
2003-09-06 7:06 ` Jan Hubicka
2003-09-05 17:19 ` Jakub Jelinek
2003-09-05 17:30 ` Andi Kleen
2003-09-08 9:48 ` Helge Hafting
[not found] <sqnW.3zE.13@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <sqHd.3Yj.1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <srtA.53H.1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <sFmW.78P.13@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-09-06 8:10 ` David Mosberger-Tang
2003-09-08 20:32 ` David Mosberger
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=20030905175938.GA29353@gtf.org \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=ak@colin2.muc.de \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jh@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rth@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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