Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

> 2018-11-07 Martin Liska > > * common.opt: Add -fipa-stack-alignment flag. > * doc/invoke.texi: Document it. > * final.c (rest_of_clean_state): Guard stack > shrinking with flag. OK > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2018-11-07 Martin Liska > > * cgraph.h

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On 11/7/18 3:27 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On 11/5/18 10:51 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: @honza: PING On 10/3/18 12:53 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 10/3/18 11:04 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> >>> That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA >>>

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

> On 11/5/18 10:51 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> @honza: PING > >> > >> On 10/3/18 12:53 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> On 10/3/18 11:04 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA > > optimizations and he's aware > > of

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On 11/5/18 10:51 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> @honza: PING >> >> On 10/3/18 12:53 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 10/3/18 11:04 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA > optimizations and he's aware > of optimizations that

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

>>> - ipa-pta (disabled by default, -fno-ipa-pta) - ipa-reference (list of accessed/modified global vars), disable by -fno-ipa-refernece - stack alignment requirements (no flag to disable) >>> >>> Would it be possible to add flag for it? Can you please point to a location

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

@honza: PING On 10/3/18 12:53 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 10/3/18 11:04 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> >>> That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA >>> optimizations and he's aware >>> of optimizations that cause troubles for live-patching. >> >> :) I am not sure how

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

> On Oct 3, 2018, at 4:04 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> >> That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA >> optimizations and he's aware >> of optimizations that cause troubles for live-patching. > > :) I am not sure how skilful I am, but here is what I arrived to. >

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

Hi, On Wed, Oct 03 2018, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA >> optimizations and he's aware >> of optimizations that cause troubles for live-patching. > > :) I am not sure how skilful I am, but here is what I arrived to. > > We have

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On 10/3/18 11:04 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA >> optimizations and he's aware >> of optimizations that cause troubles for live-patching. > > :) I am not sure how skilful I am, but here is what I arrived to. Heh! Thanks for

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

> > That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA > optimizations and he's aware > of optimizations that cause troubles for live-patching. :) I am not sure how skilful I am, but here is what I arrived to. We have transformations that are modeled as clonning, which

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On 10/2/18 8:58 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: > >> On Oct 2, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >> > Yes, such IPA analyzes should be disabled. we need to identify a >>> complete list of such analyzes. >>> >>> That was promised to be done by Honza Hubička. He's very skilled in IPA

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On October 2, 2018 7:13:13 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška" wrote: >On 10/2/18 5:12 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: >> >>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Martin Liška > wrote: >> >> Affected functions: 5 >>   __ilog2_u64/132 (include/linux/log2.h:40:5) >>   

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On 10/2/18 5:12 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Martin Liška mailto:mli...@suse.cz>> wrote: Affected functions: 5   __ilog2_u64/132 (include/linux/log2.h:40:5)   ablkcipher_request_alloc/1639 (include/linux/crypto.h:979:82)   ablkcipher_request_alloc.constprop.8/3198

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Affected functions: 5 __ilog2_u64/132 (include/linux/log2.h:40:5) ablkcipher_request_alloc/1639 (include/linux/crypto.h:979:82) ablkcipher_request_alloc.constprop.8/3198 (include/linux/crypto.h:979:82)

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On 10/2/18 4:46 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: > >> On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> >> On 10/2/18 3:28 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 3:33 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: Hi, my apologies for being terse, I'm in a meeting. On Mon, Oct 01 2018,

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > > On 10/2/18 3:28 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: >> >>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 3:33 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> my apologies for being terse, I'm in a meeting. >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 01 2018, Qing Zhao wrote: Hi, Martin,

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

On 10/2/18 3:28 PM, Qing Zhao wrote: > >> On Oct 2, 2018, at 3:33 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> my apologies for being terse, I'm in a meeting. >> >> On Mon, Oct 01 2018, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> Hi, Martin, >>> >>> I have studied a little more on >>> >>>

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 3:33 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: > > Hi, > > my apologies for being terse, I'm in a meeting. > > On Mon, Oct 01 2018, Qing Zhao wrote: >> Hi, Martin, >> >> I have studied a little more on >> >> https://github.com/marxin/kgraft-analysis-tool/blob/master/README.md >>

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

Hi, my apologies for being terse, I'm in a meeting. On Mon, Oct 01 2018, Qing Zhao wrote: > Hi, Martin, > > I have studied a little more on > > https://github.com/marxin/kgraft-analysis-tool/blob/master/README.md > > > in

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

Hi, Martin, I have studied a little more on https://github.com/marxin/kgraft-analysis-tool/blob/master/README.md in the Section “Usages”, from the example, we can see: the tool will report a list of affected functions for

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

Thanks, Martin, for all these interesting information. Looks like that a more general option to help live-patching is needed. I will do a little more study on this direction. Qing > On Sep 27, 2018, at 7:19 AM, Martin Jambor wrote: > > Hi, > > (this message is a part of the thread

Re: GCC options for kernel live-patching (Was: Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions)

Hi, (this message is a part of the thread originating with https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01018.html) On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> > If you make this to be INTERPOSABLE (which means it can be replaced by >> > different >> > implementation by linker and that is