I agree with Segher. We already know we have opportunities to do a better job with shrink-wrapping (pushing this kind of useless activity down past early exits), so having examples of code to look at to improve this would be useful.
-- Bill Bill Schmidt, Ph.D. Linux on Power Toolchain IBM Linux Technology Center [email protected] (507) 319-6873 From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]> To: Anton Blanchard <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], Michael Gschwind/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Alan Modra <[email protected]>, Bill Schmidt/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, Ulrich Weigand <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: 08/05/2015 06:20 AM Subject: Re: RFC: Reducing the number of non volatile GPRs in the ppc64 kernel Hi Anton, On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 02:03:00PM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote: > While looking at traces of kernel workloads, I noticed places where gcc > used a large number of non volatiles. Some of these functions > did very little work, and we spent most of our time saving the > non volatiles to the stack and reading them back. That is something that should be fixed in GCC -- do you have an example of such a function? > It made me wonder if we have the right ratio of volatile to non > volatile GPRs. Since the kernel is completely self contained, we could > potentially change that ratio. > > Attached is a quick hack to gcc and the kernel to decrease the number > of non volatile GPRs to 8. I'm not sure if this is a good idea (and if > the volatile to non volatile ratio is right), but this gives us > something to play with. Instead of the GCC hack you can add a bunch of -fcall-used-r14 etc. options; does that not work for you? Segher
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
