Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions

["Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:45:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > i had CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO (and UNWIND_INFO) disabled in all these build 
> > > tests.
> > 
> > Good, because I just verified: those two together will on their own 
> > increase "text size" by about 17% for me.
> > 
> > I still think Andrew is right: I don't see how an initializer that 
> > should basically be three instructions can possibly be 35 bytes larger 
> > than a function call that should be a minimum of two instructions 
> > (argument setup in %eax and the actual call - and that's totally 
> > ignoring the deleterious effects of a function call on register 
> > liveness).
> > 
> > The fact that with allnoconfig the kernel is _smaller_ (but, quite 
> > franlkly, within the noise) with the inlined version would seem to 
> > back up Andrews position that it really shouldn't matter.
> 
> well, the allnoconfig thing is artificial (and the uninteresting) for a 
> number of reasons:

hm, I'd have to say that allyesconfig is also artificial and the
savings numbers are somewhat uninteresting in that case too.


> - it has REGPARM disabled which penalizes function calls
> 
> - it's UP and hence the inlining cost of init_wait_queue_head() is 
>   significantly smaller.
> 
> - allnoconfig has smaller average function size - increasing the cost of 
>   uninlining
> 
> > So I'm left wondering why it matters for you, and what triggers it. 
> > Maybe there is some secondary issue that could show us an even more 
> > interesting optimization (or some compiler behaviour that we should 
> > try to encourage).
> 
> yeah, i'd not want to skip over some interesting and still unexplained 
> effect either, but 35 bytes isnt all that outlandish and from everything 
> i've seen it's a real win. Here is an actual example:
> 
>  c0fb6137:       c7 44 24 08 00 00 00    movl   $0x0,0x8(%esp)
>  c0fb613e:       00
>  c0fb613f:       c7 44 24 08 01 00 00    movl   $0x1,0x8(%esp)
>  c0fb6146:       00
>  c0fb6147:       c7 43 60 00 00 00 00    movl   $0x0,0x60(%ebx)
>  c0fb614e:       8b 44 24 08             mov    0x8(%esp),%eax
>  c0fb6152:       89 43 5c                mov    %eax,0x5c(%ebx)
>  c0fb6155:       8d 43 64                lea    0x64(%ebx),%eax
>  c0fb6158:       89 40 04                mov    %eax,0x4(%eax)
>  c0fb615b:       89 43 64                mov    %eax,0x64(%ebx)
> 
> versus:
> 
>  c0fb070e:       8d 43 5c                lea    0x5c(%ebx),%eax
>  c0fb0711:       e8 94 98 18 ff          call   c0139faa <init_waitqueue_head>
> 
> so 39 bytes versus 8 bytes - 31 bytes saved. It's a similar win in other 
> cases i checked too. (the only exception is for smaller functions that i 
> mentioned before: where the parameters are not pre-calculated yet so 
> there's no good integration for the function call. In that case it's 
> break even, or in some cases a 3-4 bytes loss.)

---
~Randy