Re: [PATCH 3/6] Change the symbols order when --ffuntion-sections is enabled

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Jul 30 2024 - 04:41:46 EST


On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:48:54AM -0700, Rong Xu wrote:

> > defined(CONFIG_LTO_CLANG)
> > > +#define TEXT_TEXT \
> > > + *(.text.asan.* .text.tsan.*) \
> > > + *(.text.unknown .text.unknown.*) \
> > > + *(.text.unlikely .text.unlikely.*) \
> > > + ALIGN_FUNCTION(); \
> >
> > Why leave the above text sections unaligned?
> >
>
> They are considered cold text. They are not aligned before the change. But
> I have no objections to making it aligned.

At least x86 has hard assumptions about function alignment always being
respected -- see the most horrible games we play with
CONFIG_CALL_THUNKS.

Or is this only text parts and not actual functions in these sections?
In which case we can probably get away with not respecting the function
call alignment, although we should probably still respect the branch
alignment -- but I forgot if we made use of that :/


> >
> > > + *(.text.hot .text.hot.*) \
> > > + *(TEXT_MAIN .text.fixup) \
> > > + NOINSTR_TEXT \
> > > + *(.ref.text) \
> > > + MEM_KEEP(init.text*)
> > > +#else
> > > #define TEXT_TEXT \
> > > ALIGN_FUNCTION(); \
> > > *(.text.hot .text.hot.*) \
> > > @@ -594,7 +606,8 @@
> > > NOINSTR_TEXT \
> > > *(.ref.text) \
> > > *(.text.asan.* .text.tsan.*) \
> > > - MEM_KEEP(init.text*) \
> > > + MEM_KEEP(init.text*)
> > > +#endif
> > >
> > >
> > > /* sched.text is aling to function alignment to secure we have same
> > > --
> > > 2.46.0.rc1.232.g9752f9e123-goog
> > >
> >