From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enforce function inlining for hot functions
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:10:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150424231056.GA6321@virgo.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150424201340.GD5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Paul E. McKenney | 2015-04-24 13:13:40 [-0700]:
>Hmmm... allyesconfig would have PROVE_RCU=y, which would mean that the
>above two would contain lockdep calls that might in some cases defeat
>inlining. With the more typical production choice of PROVE_RCU=n, I would
>expect these to just be a call instruction, which should get inlined.
Ok, here are the results:
with PROVE_RCU=y:
rcu_read_lock: 383 duplicates
with PROVE_RCU=n:
rcu_read_lock: 114 duplicates
If you look at the function anatomy of rcu_read_lock you often see the
following definitions:
<rcu_read_lock>:
55 push %rbp
48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
48 c7 c7 50 64 e7 85 mov $0xffffffff85e76450,%rdi
e8 ce ff ff ff callq ffffffff816af206 <rcu_lock_acquire>
5d pop %rbp
c3 retq
but sometimes rcu_read_lock looks:
<rcu_read_lock>:
55 push %rbp
48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
50 push %rax
68 83 1e 1c 81 pushq $0xffffffff811c1e83
b9 02 00 00 00 mov $0x2,%ecx
31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
45 31 c9 xor %r9d,%r9d
45 31 c0 xor %r8d,%r8d
31 f6 xor %esi,%esi
48 c7 c7 50 64 e7 85 mov $0xffffffff85e76450,%rdi
e8 86 4c f9 ff callq ffffffff81156b2e <lock_acquire>
5a pop %rdx
59 pop %rcx
c9 leaveq
c3 retq
Means rcu_lock_acquire() is inlined here - but not in every compilation unit.
Don't know exactly what forces gcc to inline not everywhere. Maybe register
pressure in the function unit, or at least gcc is think that. I don't know.
At the end you may notice that gcc inlining decisions are not always perfect
and a little bit fuzzy (sure, they have their metric/scoring system). And
sometimes the inlining should be enforced - as this patch do for some important
functions. But as I said we should not enforce it everywhere, rather we should
pray for better heuristics and let the compiler choose the best strategy (and
incorporate -Os/-O2 decisions too). I think this is the best compromise here.
Cheers, Hagen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-24 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-23 21:40 [PATCH] enforce function inlining for hot functions Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2015-04-24 19:49 ` Andrew Morton
2015-04-24 20:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-24 20:44 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2015-04-24 23:10 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer [this message]
2015-04-25 10:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-25 13:26 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2015-04-25 13:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-24 20:39 ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2015-04-25 10:53 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
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=20150424231056.GA6321@virgo.local \
--to=hagen@jauu.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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