Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification

From	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification
Date	2017-06-13 09:20 +0200
Message-ID	<tROhj-4Yo-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <tPMD0-11z-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tQ0wh-1oo-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tQc4p-sN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tR7Fn-3p3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tRedP-7nu-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> > A series that shrinks the .text size of the allnoconfig core Linux kernel from 1MB 
> > to 9.9MB in isolation is not proof.
> 
> I assume you meant 0.9MB.

0.992 MB actually if we apply the ~8k .text savings. 0.9MB would imply 100k of 
savings on an allnoconfig kernel.

> It is no proof of course. But I'm following the well known and proven 
> "release early, release often" mantra here... unless this is no longer 
> promoted?

I'm following that same pattern: I gave you negative review feedback as early as 
possible. Fragmention of the scheduler ABI increases complexity and has knock-on 
costs - and the kernel size reduction for the usecase you cited are still 1-2 
orders of magnitude away from making a practical difference.

> > There will literally have to be two orders of magnitude more patches than that 
> > to reach the 32K size envelope, if I (very) optimistically assume that the 
> > difficulty to shrink code is constant (which it most certainly is not).
> 
> Once again, my goal is _not_ 32KB.
> 
> And I don't intend to shrink code. Most of the time I just want to 
> _remove_ code. Compiling it out to be precise. The goal of this series 
> is all about compiling out code. And to achieve that with the scheduler, 
> I simply moved some code to different source files and not including 
> those source files in the final build. That keeps the number of #ifdef's 
> to a minimum but it makes a big diffstat due to the code movement.

So I'm fine with most of the code movement - let's try this series without any of 
the more controversial bits which should make future arguments easier.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-07 19:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-06-07 21:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-07 23:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-06-08 00:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-06-08 10:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-06-08 20:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-08 22:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-06-11 11:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-11 17:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-06-11 11:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-11 18:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-06-13 09:20 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] scheduler tinification Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-13 14:30 +0200

csiph-web