Re: [PATCH 00/46] gcc-LTO support for the kernel

Ard Biesheuvel
2022-11-17T11:50:07Z

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:43, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 08:50:59AM +0000, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 08:40:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 12:44, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > this is the first call for comments (and kbuild complaints) for this
> > > > > support of gcc (full) LTO in the kernel. Most of the patches come from
> > > > > Andi. Me and Martin rebased them to new kernels and fixed the to-use
> > > > > known issues. Also I updated most of the commit logs and reordered the
> > > > > patches to groups of patches with similar intent.
> > > > >
> > > > > The very first patch comes from Alexander and is pending on some x86
> > > > > queue already (I believe). I am attaching it only for completeness.
> > > > > Without that, the kernel does not boot (LTO reorders a lot).
> > > > >
> > > > > In our measurements, the performance differences are negligible.
> > > > >
> > > > > The kernel is bigger with gcc LTO due to more inlining.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so if I understand this correctly:
> > > > - the performance is the same
> > > > - the resulting image is bigger
> > > > - we need a whole lot of ugly hacks to placate the linker.
> > > >
> > > > Pardon my cynicism, but this cover letter does not mention any
> > > > advantages of LTO, so what is the point of all of this?
> > >
> > > Seconded; I really hate all the ugly required for the GCC-LTO
> > > 'solution'. There not actually being any benefit just makes it a very
> > > simple decision to drop all these patches on the floor.
> >
> > I'd say that instead a prerequesite for the series would be to actually
> > enforce hidden visibility for everything not part of the kernel module
> > API so the compiler can throw away unused functions. Currently it has
> > to keep everything because with a shared object there might be external
> > references to everything exported from individual TUs.
>
> I'm not sure what you're on about; only symbols annotated with
> EXPORT_SYMBOL*() are accessible from modules (aka DSOs) and those will
> have their address taken. You can feely eliminate any unused symbol.
>
> > There was a size benefit mentioned for module-less monolithic kernels
> > as likely used in embedded setups, not sure if that's enough motivation
> > to properly annotate symbols with visibility - and as far as I understand
> > all these 'required' are actually such fixes.
>
> I'm not seeing how littering __visible is useful or desired, doubly so
> for that static hack, that's just a crude work around for GCC LTO being
> inferior for not being able to read inline asm.

We have an __ADDRESSABLE() macro and asmlinkage modifier to annotate
symbols that may appear to the compiler as though they are never
referenced.

Would it be possible to repurpose those so that the LTO code knows
which symbols it must not remove?