From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754993AbbDNMKH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:10:07 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:33844 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753657AbbDNMJ7 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:09:59 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:09:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Align jump targets to 1 byte boundaries
Message-ID: <20150414120954.GA23761@gmail.com>
References: <20150411144135.GB31416@x4>
 <20150412101422.GA2862@gmail.com>
 <20150413162308.GB398@x4>
 <20150413172624.GC398@x4>
 <CA+55aFyWonZVCwynECu1TgpraNnQ_K8YzHf9oPMUM3-St-QaPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150413190914.GA398@x4>
 <20150414053821.GA28321@gmail.com>
 <20150414082346.GB398@x4>
 <20150414091615.GA10345@gmail.com>
 <20150414111706.GC398@x4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150414111706.GC398@x4>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote:

> > I'm not so sure about that one, our data access patterns are 
> > usually a lot more well thought out than our code alignment (which 
> > is really mostly compiler controlled). It also gives limited 
> > savings:
> > 
> >   9202488 vmlinux gcc-5
> >   9186105 vmlinux gcc-5 (-malign-data=abi)
> > 
> > Which is 0.1%. I've got a handful of options in that size range:
> > 
> > +        # Reduces vmlinux size by 0.25%:
> > +        KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-caller-saves
> > +
> > +        # Reduces vmlinux size by 1.10%:
> > +        KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-inline-small-functions
> > +
> > +        # Reduces vmlinux size by about 0.95%:
> > +        KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-tree-ch
> > 
> > but obviously they are more obscure and thus riskier. Find below 
> > an updated "Ingo's combo patch". It gives more than 10% savings 
> > here on x86 defconfig using gcc 4.9, without LTO.
> 
> Well obviously, if you do not care about performance you can reduce 
> the text size further and further. [...]

Yes, but I picked GCC options that I don't think impact performance 
negatively and offer a sizable debloating effect. Especially with 
inlining if code size increases it's probably a net loss.

> [...] But what is interesting is to keep the performance up (or even 
> increase it) and still reduce the text size.

By my (admittedly quick) review I think those 3 extra options I added 
still generate pretty OK code in the end. I.e. they are not like -Os 
that generates utter crap to save a byte.

Thanks,

	Ingo