On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 07:25:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 08:41:39AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > Did you try Clang CONFIG_LTO=y builds? > > I tried a CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN in order to check that the *.mod.S stuff > worked correctly, all working correctly.
Okay, thanks! I did the same just now too. It seems to be just fine. > I can try to get some profiling numbers for thin and full if you want? Mostly I wanted to know if it worked still, and I guess for profiling, I'd want to make sure it didn't regress how long it took to build. :) > Well I rewrote the majority of them, so this is a stinging critique of my > commit message writing I guess :) Oops! Sorry. I'll go through them again, but I felt like the objtool commit logs were very long, but perhaps it is justified. ;) > (N.B. I have had feedback like that on a fair few human-written commit > messages of mine lately so there might be some validity to that ;) And as I said, I get told I'm often too terse, so perhaps my sensing here is broken. :P > > One area I think might solved via an LLM is the 3-pass kallsyms stuff. > > If we could get a deterministic kallsyms build in 1 pass, that would be > > very nice. A lot of people have tried, but it has eluded upstreaming. > > "going from three passes to one would save around 8s on an allmodconfig > build and 2 to 3s on defconfig, out of tails that are currently roughly 25s > and 8s." says the LLM :) so that actually does seem worthwhile. It's what I'm always staring at when I do incrementals. ;) > But I think best as a follow up? Yeah, I would imagine it'd be separate. (I think a few of these sets of changes could be landed separately too, like the pigz work.) -- Kees Cook
