From: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [llvmlinux] percpu | bitmap issue? (Cannot boot on bare metal due to a kernel NULL pointer dereference)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:50:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55F708D3.9090007@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+icZUX=0qtftp+y1RdeyAZrZuiNMHKk=jhpWiB2sGqsJtcWuQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2468 bytes --]
On 2015-09-14 03:49, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:33:39AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>> It looks like an inline-optimization bug in CLANG when the compiler's
>>>> optimization-level is higher than -O2.
>>
>>>> [1] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/2015-September/001355.html
>>>
>>> After some discussion on #llvm it turned out to be a known issue in LLVMLinux!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, an existing patch [1] got archived which is still
>>> required to build x86_64 correctly.
>>
>>> [1] http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=llvmlinux.git;a=blob_plain;f=arch/x86_64/patches/ARCHIVE/0029-Fix-ARCH_HWEIGHT-for-compilation-with-clang.patch;hb=HEAD
>>
>> As long as LLVM cannot do things like that and requires full function
>> calls I cannot see it being a sensible compiler to use from a
>> performance POV.
>>
>> There's a fairly large difference between an inline POPCNT instruction
>> and a full out-of-line function call.
>>
>> /me goes back to ignoring LLVM for the time being.
>
> Can you give an example or describe a test-case to check the performance?
>
> I have here diverse Linux v4.2 kernels (all have the same kernel-config)...
>
> [ llvmlinux-patched ]
>
> #1: Compiled with CLANG v3.7 from a self-built llvm-toolchain v3.7.0
> #2: Compiled with GCC v4.9
>
> [ unpatched ]
>
> #3: Compiled with GCC v4.9
>
> Can you also comment on the effects of CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE in
> case of performance?
> It is only to reduce binary size or does it also do some "speed" optimization?
I can comment at least a little about the -Os aspect (although not I'm
no expert on this in particular). In general, for _most_ use cases, a
kernel compiled with CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE will run slower than
one compiled without it. On rare occasion though, it may actually run
faster, the only cases I've seen where this happens are specialized uses
that are very memory pressure dependent and run almost entirely in
userspace with almost no syscalls (for example math related stuff
operating on _very, very big_ (as in, >1 trillion elements)
multidimensional matrices, with complex memory constraints), and even
then it's usually a miniscule improvement in performance (generally less
than 1%, which can of course be significant depending on how long it
takes before the improvement).
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3019 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-14 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-06 17:45 [llvmlinux] percpu | bitmap issue? (Cannot boot on bare metal due to a kernel NULL pointer dereference) Sedat Dilek
2015-09-07 5:58 ` Sedat Dilek
[not found] ` <CA+icZUUs3KEydWRgu_Y+YqS4TcCNp2DUw3Y+KfBzX7aPg_kzLw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-09-09 2:29 ` Baoquan He
2015-09-09 2:51 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-09 3:04 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-09 3:14 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-09 3:25 ` Baoquan He
2015-09-09 3:46 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-09 6:56 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-09 7:14 ` Baoquan He
2015-09-09 7:41 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-09 10:05 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-09 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-12 21:22 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-13 2:33 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-14 7:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-14 7:35 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-14 7:57 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-14 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-14 9:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-09-14 9:55 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-14 9:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-09-14 10:22 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-14 12:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-09-14 7:49 ` Sedat Dilek
2015-09-14 17:50 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn [this message]
2015-09-14 18:27 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-09-14 18:38 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-09-15 6:11 ` Ingo Molnar
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=55F708D3.9090007@gmail.com \
--to=ahferroin7@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).