Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions

[Nadav Amit]

at 1:40 AM, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On October 4, 2018 1:33:33 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm also somewhat annoyed at the fact that this series carries a
>> boatload
>>> of reviewed-by's and acked-by's, yet none of those reviewers found it
>>> important to point out the large chasm that is gaping between
>> description
>>> and reality.
>> 
>> Another problem I just realized is that we now include
>> arch/x86/kernel/macros.S in every 
>> translation pass when building the kernel, right?
>> 
>> But arch/x86/kernel/macros.S expands to a pretty large hiearchy of
>> header files:
>> 
>> $ make arch/x86/kernel/macros.s
>> 
>> $ cat $(grep include arch/x86/kernel/macros.s | cut -d\" -f2 | sort |
>> uniq) | wc -l
>> 4128
>> 
>> That's 4,100 extra lines of code to be preprocessed for every
>> translation unit, of
>> which there are tens of thousands. More if other pieces of code get
>> macrofied in
>> this fasion in the future.
>> 
>> If we assume that a typical distribution kernel build has ~20,000
>> translation units
>> then this change adds 82,560,000 more lines to be preprocessed, just to
>> work around
>> a stupid GCC bug?
>> 
>> I'm totally unhappy about that. Can we do this without adding macros.S?
>> 
>> It's also a pretty stupidly central file anyway that moves source code
>> away
>> from where it's used.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 	Ingo
> 
> It's not just for working around a stupid GCC bug, but it also has a huge
> potential for cleaning up the inline asm in general.
> 
> I would like to know if there is an actual number for the build overhead
> (an actual benchmark); I have asked for that once already.

I can run some tests. (@hpa: I thought you asked about the -pipe overhead;
perhaps I misunderstood).

I guess you regard to the preprocessing of the assembler. Note that the C 
preprocessing of macros.S obviously happens only once. Thatâs the reason
I assumed itâs not that expensive.

Anyhow, I remember that we discussed at some point doing something like
âasm(â.include XXX.sâ)â and somebody said it is not good, but I donât
remember why and donât see any reason it is so. Unless I am missing
something, I think it is possible to take each individual header and
preprocess the assembly part of into a separate .s file. Then we can put in
the C part of the header âasm(".include XXX.sâ)â.

What do you think?