lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] time: allow gcc to fold constants when using msecs_to_jiffies
On Sun, 05 Apr 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 03:00 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Apr 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2015-04-05 at 09:23 +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > > The majority of the msecs_to_jiffies() users in the kernel are passing in
> > > > constants which would allow gcc to do constant folding by checking with
> > > > __builtin_constant_p() in msecs_to_jiffies().
> > > >
> > > > The original msecs_to_jiffies is renamed to __msecs_to_jiffies and aside
> > > > from the removal of the check for negative values being moved out, is
> > > > unaltered.
> > >
> > > At least for gcc 4.9, this doesn't allow the compiler
> > > to optimize / precalculation msecs_to_jiffies calls
> > > with a constant.
> > >
> > > This does: (on top of your patch x86-64 defconfig)
> > >
> > > $ size vmlinux.o.*
> > > text data bss dec hex filename
> > > 11770523 1505971 1018454 14294948 da1fa4 vmlinux.o.next-b0a12fb5bc8
> > > 11770530 1505971 1018454 14294955 da1fab vmlinux.o.next-b0a12fb5bc8-inline
> > > 11768734 1505971 1018454 14293159 da18a7 vmlinux.o.next-b0a12fb5bc8-macro
> > >
> > > I think this should still move the if (m) < 0 back into the
> > > original __msecs_to_jiffies function.
> > >
> >
> > could you check if you can reproduce the results below ?
> > my assumption was that gcc would always optimize out an
> > if(CONST < 0) return CONST; reducing it to the return CONST;
> > only and thus this should not make any difference but Im not
> > that familiar with gcc.
> >
> > gcc versions here are:
> > for x86 gcc version 4.7.2 (Debian 4.7.2-5)
> > for powerpc it is a gcc version 4.9.2 (crosstool-NG 1.20.0)
> > for arm gcc version 4.9.2 20140904 (prerelease) (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.9-2014.09 - Linaro GCC 4.9-2014.09)
> >
> > Procedure used:
> > root@debian:~/linux-next# make distclean
> > root@debian:~/linux-next# make defconfig
> > root@debian:~/linux-next# make drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.lst
> > root@debian:~/linux-next# make drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.s
> >
> > same setup in unpatched /usr/src/linux-next/
> >
> > e.g:
> > root@debian:/usr/src/linux-next# grep msecs_to_jiffies drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> >
> > So both calls are constants and should be optimized out if it works as
> > expected.
> >
> > without the patch applied:
> >
> > root@debian:/usr/src/linux-next# grep msecs_to_jiffies drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.s
> > call msecs_to_jiffies #
> > call msecs_to_jiffies #
> > root@debian:/usr/src/linux-next# grep msecs_to_jiffies drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.lst
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > e19: R_X86_64_PC32 msecs_to_jiffies+0xfffffffffffffffc
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > fd8: R_X86_64_PC32 msecs_to_jiffies+0xfffffffffffffffc
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> >
> >
> > with the patch applied this then gives me:
> >
> > root@debian:~/linux-next# grep msecs_to_jiffies drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.s
> > root@debian:~/linux-next# grep msecs_to_jiffies drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.lst
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> >
> > Conversely in kernel/sched/core.c the msecs_to_jiffies is not a constant
> > and the result is that it calls __msecs_to_jiffies
> >
> > patched:
> > root@debian:~/linux-next# grep msecs_to_jiffies kernel/sched/core.s
> > call __msecs_to_jiffies #
> >
> > unpatched:
> > root@debian:/usr/src/linux-next# grep msecs_to_jiffies kernel/sched/core.s
> > call msecs_to_jiffies #
> >
> >
> > Could you check if you get these results for this test-case ?
> > If this really were compiler dependant that would be very bad.
>
> Hi Nicholas.
>
> Your inline version has not worked with any of
> x86-64 gcc 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, or 4.9
>
> I suggest you add some lines to
> lib/test_module.c/test_module_init like:
>
> unsigned int m;
>
> for (m = 10; m < 200; m += 10)
> pr_info("msecs_to_jiffies(%u) is %lu\n",
> m, msecs_to_jiffies(m));
>
> pr_info("msecs_to_jiffies(%u) is %lu\n",
> 10, msecs_to_jiffies(10));
> pr_info("msecs_to_jiffies(%u) is %lu\n",
> 100, msecs_to_jiffies(100));
> pr_info("msecs_to_jiffies(%u) is %lu\n",
> 1000, msecs_to_jiffies(1000));
>
> Then it's pretty easy to look at the assembly/.lst file
>
> Your inline function doesn't allow gcc to precompute
> the msecs_to_jiffies value. The macro one does for all
> those gcc versions.
>
> Try it and look at the generated .lst files with and
> without the patch I sent.
>
will do that - thanks !

Managed to fool my self - the difference in the .lst/.s files is
simply due to chaning msecs_to_jiffies being inline
(which it was not) and thus it "vanished" - kind of stupid - sorry
back to gcc manual first - need to understand __builtin_constant_p
better and the constraints - from all that I understood it should
be doable both as macro and inline.

thx!
hofrat


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-06 07:01    [W:0.072 / U:0.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site