* Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
