From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:11:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <1231434515.14304.27.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <496648C7.5050700@zytor.com> <20090109130057.GA31845@elte.hu> <49675920.4050205@hp.com> <20090109153508.GA4671@elte.hu> <49677CB1.3030701@zytor.com> <20090109084620.3c711aad@infradead.org> <20090109172011.GD26290@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Dirk Hohndel , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , jim owens , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich , jh@suse.cz To: Andi Kleen Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090109172011.GD26290@one.firstfloor.org> List-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Andi Kleen wrote: > > There's also one alternative: gcc's inlining algorithms are extensibly > tunable with --param. We might be able to find a set of numbers that > make it roughly work like we want it by default. We tried that. IIRC, the numbers mean different things for different versions of gcc, and I think using the parameters was very strongly discouraged by gcc developers. IOW, they were meant for gcc developers internal tuning efforts, not really for external people. Which means that using them would put us _more_ at the mercy of random compiler versions rather than less. Linus