From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: unify x86 Makefile(s)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:54:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071229125412.GE27360@does.not.exist> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200712291316.07938.ak@suse.de>
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 01:16:07PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> If -funit-at-a-time really increases stack size too much on some compiler
> version the right fix would be to check where it does that using make checkstack
> and then add "noinline" attributes there to prevent the compiler from inlining.
> That would prevent them.
>
> Globally disabling it is too big a hammer.
>
> e.g. I know XFS did it in a similar way to prevent this problem.
>
> So I would reenable it for now and if you know it causes problems on specific
> compiler versions, Adrian, you could watch make checkstack there and submit
> noinline patches as needed.
The main point is that we are _only_ talking about gcc 3.4 on i386 - for
more recent compilers we do not disable unit-at-a-time.
First of all our user - and therefore tester - base with this compiler
has become quite small. And checkstack alone doesn't help that much with
finding the problems since it only lists per-function stack usage, not
the stack usage of the complete call chain.
People who want maximum performance and/or minimum code size anyway
won't use a more than 3 years old compiler.
If we were talking about gcc 4.2 I would agree with you, but I simply do
not see the point in risking regressions for gcc 3.4 users when the only
benefit would be better code with an ancient compiler.
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-29 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-28 21:23 [PATCH] x86: unify x86 Makefile(s) Sam Ravnborg
2007-12-28 22:13 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-12-29 2:14 ` Andi Kleen
2007-12-29 8:07 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-12-29 9:39 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-12-29 9:52 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-12-29 12:16 ` Andi Kleen
2007-12-29 12:54 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2007-12-29 18:22 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-12-29 18:24 ` Andi Kleen
2007-12-29 18:58 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-12-29 21:17 ` Andi Kleen
2007-12-29 21:45 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-12-30 2:00 ` Andi Kleen
2007-12-30 11:01 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-12-29 2:22 ` Andi Kleen
2007-12-29 8:07 ` Sam Ravnborg
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=20071229125412.GE27360@does.not.exist \
--to=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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