On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 2:24 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:13 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:58:48PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > The config that reproduces it wasn't shared here; I wouldn't be
> > > surprised if this was found via ran
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:13 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:58:48PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > The config that reproduces it wasn't shared here; I wouldn't be
> > surprised if this was found via randconfig that enabled some config
> > that led to excessive code bl
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:58:48PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> The config that reproduces it wasn't shared here; I wouldn't be
> surprised if this was found via randconfig that enabled some config
> that led to excessive code bloat somewhere somehow.
I'm sceptical it is the .config. As I said
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:31:33PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> Q: But I put the `inline` keyword on the callee?
> A: Probably deserves its own post, but the `inline` keyword doesn't
> mean what any rational initial impression would suppose. Language in
> the standard refers to "inline substit
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:59 PM 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built
Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:33 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > But apparently the cost model has decided that this is not inlineable.
> > Maybe because that function ptr is assigned at boot time and that
> > someho
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:33 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:31:33PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > (full thread:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210225112247.2240389-1-a...@kernel.org/)
> > I suspect in this specific case, "Interprocedural Sparse Conditional
> > C
Hi Nick,
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:31:33PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> So LLVM is telling us bar() was inlined into foo(); (baz() can't be
> because it wasn't defined in this TU). You can use this to "watch"
> the compiler make decisions about inlining.
thanks for taking the time to write
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:20 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:42 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Either way works correctly, I don't care much, but picked the __init
> > > annotation as it seemed more intu
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:42 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Either way works correctly, I don't care much, but picked the __init
> > annotation as it seemed more intuitive. If the compiler decides to
> > make it out-of-line for what
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Either way works correctly, I don't care much, but picked the __init
> annotation as it seemed more intuitive. If the compiler decides to
> make it out-of-line for whatever reason,
Well, frankly, I see no good reason for not inlining
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:45 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:22:41PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > -static inline void get_smp_config(void)
> > +static inline __init void get_smp_config(void)
>
> __always_inline then I guess.
>
> Not inlining those is just silly.
Either
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:22:41PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> clang-13 sometimes decides to not inline early_get_smp_config(),
> which leads to a link-time warning:
>
> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x838cc): Section mismatch in reference
> from the function early
12 matches
Mail list logo
