Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1593597
| From | hpa@zytor.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy |
| Date | 2017-03-06 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ti6b7-49O-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <thK0V-4SA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <thKNk-5sV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <thUWm-4mz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <thVpn-4FY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ti4VI-33v-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On March 6, 2017 9:12:41 AM PST, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> wrote: > > >On 06/03/17 12:28 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 03/05/17 23:01, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>> >>> On 05/03/17 12:54 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>>> Logan, wanna give that a try, see if it takes care of your issue? >>> >>> Well honestly my issue was solved by fixing my kernel config. I have >no >>> idea why I had optimize for size in there in the first place. >>> >> >> Yes, to gcc "optimize for size" means exactly that... intended for >cases >> where saving storage (e.g. ROM) or code download time is paramount. > >I agree and understand, however placing a poorly performing _inline_ >memcpy instead of a single call instruction to a performant memcopy >probably took more code space in the end. So like Linus, I just have to >scratch my head at the -Os optimization option. > >Logan No, it will be smaller: -Os counts bytes. If you think about it, there is no way that replacing a five-byte subroutine call with a two-byte instruction opcode can make it bigger! The only other difference between the two from a size perspective is that the compiler doesn't have to worry about clobbered registers other than the argument registers. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-03-04 22:20 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-04 23:50 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-05 01:00 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-05 01:20 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-05 01:30 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-05 01:40 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-05 02:00 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-05 11:00 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-05 12:20 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-05 14:10 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-05 21:20 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-05 21:20 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-03-06 08:10 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2017-03-06 08:40 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-03-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-06 20:10 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-06 14:40 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy hpa@zytor.com - 2017-03-06 14:50 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-06 15:10 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-03-05 06:00 +0100
Re: Question Regarding ERMS memcpy Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2017-03-05 11:00 +0100
csiph-web