Re: [PATCH 18/46] entry, lto: Mark raw_irqentry_exit_cond_resched() as __visible

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, Nov 17 2022 at 14:07, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Anyway; I think we can drop all this crazy on the floor again, since per
>> the 0/n (which I didn't get) there isn't any actual benefit from using
>> GCC-LTO, so why should we bother with all this ugly.
>
> At least in the past it generated smaller kernels for small configurations.
>
> One benefit that wasn't mentioned is doing type and other checks (e.g. 
> constant propagation
>
> through inlining) across files.
>
> In general LTO gives the compiler a lot more freedom to optimize code, 
> so even if it's not quite there
>
> yet I think it's beneficial to let users play around with it and see if 
> they can get benefits.

Sure, they can play around with it but that does not require to merge
all this nonsensical ballast for a half thought out compiler.

If they want to do that they can apply the pile of patches as provided
and play around.

If anything useful comes out of that with sensible changelogs and a
sensible argumentation why supporting a half thought out compiler is
required then we can revisit that.

Up to that point this is all considered to be __invisible.

Thanks,

        tglx