From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750882AbdGGJoo (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:44:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:35257 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750938AbdGGJol (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:44:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 11:44:37 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , Jiri Slaby , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] objtool: add undwarf debuginfo generation Message-ID: <20170707094437.2vgosia5hjg2wsut@gmail.com> References: <20170629072512.pmkfnrgq4dci6od7@gmail.com> <20170629140404.qgcvxhcgm7iywrkb@treble> <20170629144618.vdzem7o6ib5nqab6@gmail.com> <20170629150652.r2dl7f3pzp6cj2i7@treble> <20170706203636.lcwfjsphmy2q464v@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170706203636.lcwfjsphmy2q464v@treble> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:06:52AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:46:18PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > > > > Plus, shouldn't we use __packed for 'struct undwarf' to minimize the > > > > > structure's size (to 6 bytes AFAICS?) - or is optimal packing of the main > > > > > undwarf array already guaranteed on every platform with this layout? > > > > > > > > Ah yes, it should definitely be packed (assuming that doesn't affect performance > > > > negatively). > > > > > > So if I count that correctly that should shave another ~1MB off a typical ~4MB > > > table size? > > > > Here's what my Fedora kernel looks like *before* the packed change: > > > > $ eu-readelf -S vmlinux |grep undwarf > > [15] .undwarf_ip PROGBITS ffffffff81f776d0 011776d0 0012d9d0 0 A 0 0 1 > > [16] .undwarf PROGBITS ffffffff820a50a0 012a50a0 0025b3a0 0 A 0 0 1 > > > > The total undwarf data size is ~3.5MB. > > > > There are 308852 entries of two parallel arrays: > > > > * .undwarf (8 bytes/entry) = 2470816 bytes > > * .undwarf_ip (4 bytes/entry) = 1235408 bytes > > > > If we pack undwarf, reducing the size of the .undwarf entries by two > > bytes, it will save 308852 * 2 = 617704. > > > > So the savings will be ~600k, and the typical size will be reduced to ~3MB. > > Just for the record, while packing the struct from 8 to 6 bytes did save 600k, > it also made the unwinder ~7% slower. I think that's probably an ok tradeoff, > so I'll leave it packed in v3. So, out of curiosity, I'm wondering where that slowdown comes from: on modern x86 CPUs indexing by units of 6 bytes ought to be just as fast as indexing by 8 bytes, unless I'm missing something? Is it maybe the not naturally aligned 32-bit words? Or maybe there's some bad case of a 32-bit word crossing a 64-byte cache line boundary that hits some pathological aspect of the CPU? We could probably get around any such problems by padding by 2 bytes on 64-byte boundaries - that's only a ~3% data size increase. The flip side would be a complication of the data structure and its accessors - which might cost more in terms of code generation efficiency than it buys us to begin with ... Also, there's another aspect besides RAM footprint: a large data structure that is ~20% smaller means 20% less cache footprint: which for cache cold lookups might matter more than the direct computational cost. Thanks, Ingo