* Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2014.04.15 at 20:19 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 01:36:02PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > On 2014.04.15 at 13:19 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And while the code size reduction is less for MIPS than what othe
On 2014.04.15 at 20:19 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 01:36:02PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2014.04.15 at 13:19 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And while the code size reduction is less for MIPS than what others have
> > > > reported for their platfor
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 01:36:02PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2014.04.15 at 13:19 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >
> > > And while the code size reduction is less for MIPS than what others have
> > > reported for their platforms (I'm still investigating) is still is enough
> > > that e
On 2014.04.15 at 13:19 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > And while the code size reduction is less for MIPS than what others have
> > reported for their platforms (I'm still investigating) is still is enough
> > that embedded developers would commit murder for.
>
> I have experimented a little w
>
> And while the code size reduction is less for MIPS than what others have
> reported for their platforms (I'm still investigating) is still is enough
> that embedded developers would commit murder for.
I have experimented a little with a patch that links all of vmlinux in one step.
I compared
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 06:00:04PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > and it slows down
> > kernel development'.
>
> No, it doesn't slow down development builds; it makes kernel builds
> slower if and only if LTO is turned on, which most kernel developers
> won't need to do. On the other hand, dis
* Josh Triplett wrote:
> > and it slows down kernel development'.
>
> No, it doesn't slow down development builds; it makes kernel builds
> slower if and only if LTO is turned on, which most kernel developers
> won't need to do.
>
> On the other hand, distro and embedded kernels can do so for
> > and it slows down
> > kernel development'.
>
> No, it doesn't slow down development builds; it makes kernel builds
> slower if and only if LTO is turned on, which most kernel developers
> won't need to do. On the other hand, distro and embedded kernels can do
> so for final builds, and devel
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:32:05PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> > On 2014.04.09 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1
* Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2014.04.14 at 12:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > > On 2014.04.09 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wro
On 2014.04.14 at 12:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> > On 2014.04.09 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wr
* Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2014.04.09 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to making the kernel smaller a
> 1) There was very little if any measurable LTO runtime speedup,
> despite agressive GCC options and despite user-space generally
> offering more optimizations opportunities than kernel space.
See Honza's email. There are lots of benefits in various
large projects.
Also BTW compile
On 2014.04.09 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In addition to making the kernel smaller and such (I'll leave the
> > > > specific stats t
* Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wrote:
> > >
> > > In addition to making the kernel smaller and such (I'll leave the
> > > specific stats there to Andi), here's the key awesomeness of LTO that
> > > you,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wrote:
> >
> > In addition to making the kernel smaller and such (I'll leave the
> > specific stats there to Andi), here's the key awesomeness of LTO that
> > you, personally, should find useful and
Thanks Honza. Just one comment:
> The runtime benefits are more visible on bigger, bloated and less
> optimized projects than on hand tuned video encoder implementation.
> I believe Kernel largely falls into hand tuned category despite its size.
In my experience there's a lot of badly
> Hi Linus,
>
> > So right now, I see several reasons not to merge it ("It's so
> > experimental that we don't even want to encourage people to test it"
>
> I don't want them to enable it during allyesconfig because they
> might need more than 4GB of RAM to build it (especially with gcc
> 4.8, 4
FWIW, I'd really like to see this go in as an experimental feature.
Andi has already quoted my size results, which I thought were pretty
good, as well as given a pointer to my size optimization presentation.
Some of what follows is in the presentation, but here is a summary:
There are other autom
Hi Linus,
> So right now, I see several reasons not to merge it ("It's so
> experimental that we don't even want to encourage people to test it"
I don't want them to enable it during allyesconfig because they
might need more than 4GB of RAM to build it (especially with gcc
4.8, 4.9 is better). B
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM, wrote:
>
> In addition to making the kernel smaller and such (I'll leave the
> specific stats there to Andi), here's the key awesomeness of LTO that
> you, personally, should find useful and compelling: LTO will eliminate
> the need to add many lower-level Kconfig
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:26:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Michal Marek wrote:
> > besides the kbuild branch, here is the LTO build support by Andi. It is
> > a separate branch, because it depends on other patches by Andi which
> > were merged through other t
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Michal Marek wrote:
>
> besides the kbuild branch, here is the LTO build support by Andi. It is
> a separate branch, because it depends on other patches by Andi which
> were merged through other trees. The link-time-optimization build is an
> experimental feature, s
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> besides the kbuild branch, here is the LTO build support by Andi. It is
> a separate branch, because it depends on other patches by Andi which
> were merged through other trees. The link-time-optimization build is an
> e
Hi Linus,
besides the kbuild branch, here is the LTO build support by Andi. It is
a separate branch, because it depends on other patches by Andi which
were merged through other trees. The link-time-optimization build is an
experimental feature, so there one kconfig option to enable it and
another
25 matches
Mail list logo
