All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
To: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@arm.com>,
	Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>,
	David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] arm64: enable HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:14:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1QmS6g3cHTR93wWPkKs8vaP6RJEb8nZbTMLX+xphLJRw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+icZUUDnKBxkfgOVYDdpA29GnLUTT22mqRNyxQeYmay044ejg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:36 AM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:21 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > When looking at kernel size optimizations, I found that arm64
> > does not currently support HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION,
> > which enables the --gc-sections flag to the linker.
> >
> > I see that for a defconfig build with llvm, there are some
> > notable improvements from enabling this, in particular when
> > combined with the recently added CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN
> > and CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS:
> >
> >    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> > 16570322 10998617 506468 28075407 1ac658f defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16318793 10569913 506468 27395174 1a20466 trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16281234 10984848 504291 27770373 1a7be05 gc_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16029705 10556880 504355 27090940 19d5ffc gc+trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 17040142 11102945 504196 28647283 1b51f73 thinlto_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16788613 10663201 504196 27956010 1aa932a thinlto+trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16347062 11043384 502499 27892945 1a99cd1 gc+thinlto_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 15759453 10532792 502395 26794640 198da90 gc+thinlto+trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> >
>
> Thanks for the numbers.
> Does CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS=y have an impact to the build-time (and
> disc-usage - negative way means longer/bigger)?
> Do you have any build-time for the above numbers?

They are in the mailing list archive I linked to:

==== defconfig ====
     332.001786355 seconds time elapsed
    8599.464163000 seconds user
     676.919635000 seconds sys
==== trim_defconfig ====
     448.378576012 seconds time elapsed
   10735.489271000 seconds user
     964.006504000 seconds sys
==== gc_defconfig ====
     324.347492236 seconds time elapsed
    8465.785800000 seconds user
     614.899797000 seconds sys
==== gc+trim_defconfig ====
     429.188875620 seconds time elapsed
   10203.759658000 seconds user
     871.307973000 seconds sys
==== thinlto_defconfig ====
     389.793540200 seconds time elapsed
    9491.665320000 seconds user
     664.858109000 seconds sys
==== thinlto+trim_defconfig ====
     580.431820561 seconds time elapsed
   11429.515538000 seconds user
    1056.985745000 seconds sys
==== gc+thinlto_defconfig ====
     389.484364525 seconds time elapsed
    9473.831980000 seconds user
     675.057675000 seconds sys
==== gc+thinlto+trim_defconfig ====
     580.824912807 seconds time elapsed
   11433.650337000 seconds user
    1049.845569000 seconds sys

So HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION is a small improvement
on build time (since it can spend less time linking), while
CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS slows it down quite a bit. Combining
CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS with CONFIG_THINLTO is really
slow because here most of the time is spent in the final link (especially
when you have many CPU cores to do the earlier bits quickly), but then
it does the link twice.

> BTW, is CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION=y setable for x86 (64bit)?
> ( Did not look or check for it. )

No, in mainline, HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION is currently
only selected on MIPS and PowerPC. I only sent experimental patches to
enable it on arm64 and m68k, but have not tried booting them. If you
select the symbol on x86, you should see similar results.

       Arnd

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
To: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@arm.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] arm64: enable HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:14:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1QmS6g3cHTR93wWPkKs8vaP6RJEb8nZbTMLX+xphLJRw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+icZUUDnKBxkfgOVYDdpA29GnLUTT22mqRNyxQeYmay044ejg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:36 AM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:21 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > When looking at kernel size optimizations, I found that arm64
> > does not currently support HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION,
> > which enables the --gc-sections flag to the linker.
> >
> > I see that for a defconfig build with llvm, there are some
> > notable improvements from enabling this, in particular when
> > combined with the recently added CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN
> > and CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS:
> >
> >    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> > 16570322 10998617 506468 28075407 1ac658f defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16318793 10569913 506468 27395174 1a20466 trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16281234 10984848 504291 27770373 1a7be05 gc_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16029705 10556880 504355 27090940 19d5ffc gc+trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 17040142 11102945 504196 28647283 1b51f73 thinlto_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16788613 10663201 504196 27956010 1aa932a thinlto+trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 16347062 11043384 502499 27892945 1a99cd1 gc+thinlto_defconfig/vmlinux
> > 15759453 10532792 502395 26794640 198da90 gc+thinlto+trim_defconfig/vmlinux
> >
>
> Thanks for the numbers.
> Does CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS=y have an impact to the build-time (and
> disc-usage - negative way means longer/bigger)?
> Do you have any build-time for the above numbers?

They are in the mailing list archive I linked to:

==== defconfig ====
     332.001786355 seconds time elapsed
    8599.464163000 seconds user
     676.919635000 seconds sys
==== trim_defconfig ====
     448.378576012 seconds time elapsed
   10735.489271000 seconds user
     964.006504000 seconds sys
==== gc_defconfig ====
     324.347492236 seconds time elapsed
    8465.785800000 seconds user
     614.899797000 seconds sys
==== gc+trim_defconfig ====
     429.188875620 seconds time elapsed
   10203.759658000 seconds user
     871.307973000 seconds sys
==== thinlto_defconfig ====
     389.793540200 seconds time elapsed
    9491.665320000 seconds user
     664.858109000 seconds sys
==== thinlto+trim_defconfig ====
     580.431820561 seconds time elapsed
   11429.515538000 seconds user
    1056.985745000 seconds sys
==== gc+thinlto_defconfig ====
     389.484364525 seconds time elapsed
    9473.831980000 seconds user
     675.057675000 seconds sys
==== gc+thinlto+trim_defconfig ====
     580.824912807 seconds time elapsed
   11433.650337000 seconds user
    1049.845569000 seconds sys

So HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION is a small improvement
on build time (since it can spend less time linking), while
CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS slows it down quite a bit. Combining
CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_KSYMS with CONFIG_THINLTO is really
slow because here most of the time is spent in the final link (especially
when you have many CPU cores to do the earlier bits quickly), but then
it does the link twice.

> BTW, is CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION=y setable for x86 (64bit)?
> ( Did not look or check for it. )

No, in mainline, HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION is currently
only selected on MIPS and PowerPC. I only sent experimental patches to
enable it on arm64 and m68k, but have not tried booting them. If you
select the symbol on x86, you should see similar results.

       Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-26  8:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-25 11:20 [PATCH] [RFC] arm64: enable HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION Arnd Bergmann
2021-02-25 11:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-02-25 20:16 ` Kees Cook
2021-02-25 20:16   ` Kees Cook
2021-02-26  0:36 ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-26  0:36   ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-26  8:14   ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2021-02-26  8:14     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-02-26  9:05     ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-26  9:05       ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-26  9:51       ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-02-26  9:51         ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-02-26 10:02         ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-26 10:02           ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-27 20:13           ` Sedat Dilek
2021-02-26 21:13 ` Fangrui Song
2021-02-26 21:13   ` Fangrui Song
2021-02-27  9:49   ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-02-27  9:49     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-01  1:11     ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-03-01  1:11       ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-03-10 20:49       ` Masahiro Yamada
2021-03-10 20:49         ` Masahiro Yamada
2021-03-10 21:08         ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-10 21:08           ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-10 21:24           ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-10 21:24             ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-10 21:47             ` Nicolas Pitre
2021-03-10 21:47               ` Nicolas Pitre
2021-03-10 21:57               ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-10 21:57                 ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-10 22:02           ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-03-10 22:02             ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-03-10 22:08             ` Nicolas Pitre
2021-03-10 22:08               ` Nicolas Pitre
2021-03-10 22:29           ` Fangrui Song
2021-03-10 22:29             ` Fangrui Song
2021-03-10 21:45         ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-03-10 21:45           ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-03-10 21:19       ` Nicolas Pitre
2021-03-10 21:19         ` Nicolas Pitre
2021-03-10 22:42         ` Fangrui Song
2021-03-10 22:42           ` Fangrui Song
2021-03-17 14:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-17 14:37   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-17 16:18   ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-17 16:18     ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-18  8:41     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-18  8:41       ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-19 12:25       ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-19 12:25         ` Catalin Marinas
2021-03-19 14:01         ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-19 14:01           ` Arnd Bergmann

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=CAK8P3a1QmS6g3cHTR93wWPkKs8vaP6RJEb8nZbTMLX+xphLJRw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=arnd@kernel.org \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=ascull@google.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=dbrazdil@google.com \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kristina.martsenko@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
    --cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=will@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.