netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: Force inlining of checksum functions in net/checksum.h
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:55:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9b8ef186-c7fe-822c-35df-342c9e86cc88@csgroup.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d38e5e1c-29b6-8cc6-7409-d0bdd5772f23@csgroup.eu>



Le 17/02/2022 à 15:50, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> Adding Ingo, Andrew and Nick as they were involved in the subjet,
> 
> Le 17/02/2022 à 14:36, David Laight a écrit :
>> From: Christophe Leroy
>>> Sent: 17 February 2022 12:19
>>>
>>> All functions defined as static inline in net/checksum.h are
>>> meant to be inlined for performance reason.
>>>
>>> But since commit ac7c3e4ff401 ("compiler: enable
>>> CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING forcibly") the compiler is allowed to
>>> uninline functions when it wants.
>>>
>>> Fair enough in the general case, but for tiny performance critical
>>> checksum helpers that's counter-productive.
>>
>> There isn't a real justification for allowing the compiler
>> to 'not inline' functions in that commit.
> 
> Do you mean that the two following commits should be reverted:
> 
> - 889b3c1245de ("compiler: remove CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING entirely")
> - 4c4e276f6491 ("net: Force inlining of checksum functions in 
> net/checksum.h")

Of course not the above one (copy/paste error), but:
- ac7c3e4ff401 ("compiler: enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING forcibly")


> 
>>
>> It rather seems backwards.
>> The kernel sources don't really have anything marked 'inline'
>> that shouldn't always be inlined.
>> If there are any such functions they are few and far between.
>>
>> I've had enough trouble (elsewhere) getting gcc to inline
>> static functions that are only called once.
>> I ended up using 'always_inline'.
>> (That is 4k of embedded object code that will be too slow
>> if it ever spills a register to stack.)
>>
> 
> I agree with you that that change is a nightmare with many small 
> functions that we really want inlined, and when we force inlining we 
> most of the time get a smaller binary.
> 
> And it becomes even more problematic when we start adding 
> instrumentation like stack protector.
> 
> According to the original commits however this was supposed to provide 
> real benefit:
> 
> - 60a3cdd06394 ("x86: add optimized inlining")
> - 9012d011660e ("compiler: allow all arches to enable 
> CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING")
> 
> But when I build ppc64le_defconfig + CONFIG_CC_OPTIMISE_FOR_SIZE I get:
>      112 times  queued_spin_unlock()
>      122 times  mmiowb_spin_unlock()
>      151 times  cpu_online()
>      225 times  __raw_spin_unlock()
> 
> 
> So I was wondering, would we have a way to force inlining of functions 
> marked inline in header files while leaving GCC handling the ones in C 
> files the way it wants ?
> 
> Christophe

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-17 14:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-17 12:19 [PATCH net v3] net: Force inlining of checksum functions in net/checksum.h Christophe Leroy
2022-02-17 13:36 ` David Laight
2022-02-17 14:50   ` Christophe Leroy
2022-02-17 14:55     ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2022-02-17 15:15       ` David Laight
2022-02-17 16:17         ` Masahiro Yamada
2022-02-17 16:49           ` David Laight
2022-02-17 17:27             ` Masahiro Yamada
2022-02-17 18:07               ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-02-18  1:35                 ` Masahiro Yamada
2022-02-18 12:12                   ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-02-18 16:29                     ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-02-18 16:44                       ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-02-18  8:41               ` David Laight
2022-02-17 15:42 ` Joe Perches

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=9b8ef186-c7fe-822c-35df-342c9e86cc88@csgroup.eu \
    --to=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
    --cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).