lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [llvmlinux] percpu | bitmap issue? (Cannot boot on bare metal due to a kernel NULL pointer dereference)
From
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:33:39AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> > It looks like an inline-optimization bug in CLANG when the compiler's
>> > optimization-level is higher than -O2.
>
>> > [1] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/2015-September/001355.html
>>
>> After some discussion on #llvm it turned out to be a known issue in LLVMLinux!
>>
>> Unfortunately, an existing patch [1] got archived which is still
>> required to build x86_64 correctly.
>
>> [1] http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=llvmlinux.git;a=blob_plain;f=arch/x86_64/patches/ARCHIVE/0029-Fix-ARCH_HWEIGHT-for-compilation-with-clang.patch;hb=HEAD
>
> As long as LLVM cannot do things like that and requires full function
> calls I cannot see it being a sensible compiler to use from a
> performance POV.
>
> There's a fairly large difference between an inline POPCNT instruction
> and a full out-of-line function call.
>
> /me goes back to ignoring LLVM for the time being.

Can you give an example or describe a test-case to check the performance?

I have here diverse Linux v4.2 kernels (all have the same kernel-config)...

[ llvmlinux-patched ]

#1: Compiled with CLANG v3.7 from a self-built llvm-toolchain v3.7.0
#2: Compiled with GCC v4.9

[ unpatched ]

#3: Compiled with GCC v4.9

Can you also comment on the effects of CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE in
case of performance?
It is only to reduce binary size or does it also do some "speed" optimization?

Thanks in advance.

- Sedat -


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-14 10:01    [W:0.139 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site