public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 23:45:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071229214522.GG27360@does.not.exist> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200712292217.37474.ak@suse.de>

On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:17:37PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Until we are on par with stack usage I recommend to keep
> > -fno-unit-at-a-time disabled for gcc less than 4.00 as
> > suggested by Adrian (as is what we have today).
> 
> Again the correct fix is to add "noinline" to the functions that are getting
> inlined here in 3.4 but not 4+.

The problem isn't that gcc 3.4 and gcc 4.x inlined different functions, 
the problem is that with gcc 3.4 the stack usage was higher.

AFAIR, the problem was roughly something like:

<--  snip  -->

static void foo(void)
{
...
}

static void bar(void)
{
...
}

void foobar(void)
{
	foo();
	bar();
}

<--  snip  -->

Without inlining the maxmimum stack usage inside foobar() is
max(stack usage foo(), stack usage bar()). [1]

With foo() and bar() inlined (-funit-at-a-time also enables 
-finline-functions-called-once), the maxmimum stack usage inside 
foobar() is sum(stack usage foo(), stack usage bar()). And this
worst case is the area where gcc 4 is much better than gcc 3.4.

We have cases in the kernel were a switch handles a dozen cases
(e.g. ioctl handling) and each results in a call to a different static 
function.

> -Andi

cu
Adrian

[1] this ignores function call stack usages, but these are low compared 
    to the interesting ones

-- 

       "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


  reply	other threads:[~2007-12-29 21:45 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
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 [this message]
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=20071229214522.GG27360@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