On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 14:22:31 -0700 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-08-07 at 10:44 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > It is so bloated that gcc needs to be asked to not screw up with stack > > > > > size. > > > > What happens when you drop all the noinlines for this? I assume > > > > this would alread make it faster. And now that we have bigger > > > > stacks we can likely tolerate it. > > > %pV recurses through these code paths. > > > I believe the maximum current recursion depth is 3. > > I assume 2 max would sufficient for all users in kernel. > > > > And perhaps it would be better to get rid of "features" like this, > > and instead focus on more common cases. > > It'd be a dubious trade-off in my opinion. > > Overall code size has been reduced by hundreds of KB > by using %pV. I kinda like Alexey's patch just for aesthetic reasons. Those huge straggly printk-style statements are a real pain to maintain, trying to keep the control string and the args in sync. Especially when there are ifdefs everywhere - take a look at meminfo_proc_show() and weep. Geeze the number of times I've had to maintain (and screw up) conflicts in that thing...
