Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752255AbWAEWyt (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:54:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752253AbWAEWyt (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:54:49 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:24575 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751148AbWAEWyt (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:54:49 -0500 Message-ID: <43BDA271.2020502@mbligh.org> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:49:21 -0800 From: Martin Bligh User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051011) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Mackall CC: Linus Torvalds , Arjan van de Ven , Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel , Dave Jones , Tim Schmielau Subject: Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers References: <200601041959_MC3-1-B550-5EE2@compuserve.com> <43BC716A.5080204@mbligh.org> <1136463553.2920.22.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060105170255.GK3356@waste.org> <43BD5E6F.1040000@mbligh.org> <20060105213442.GM3356@waste.org> <20060105223656.GP3356@waste.org> In-Reply-To: <20060105223656.GP3356@waste.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 36 >>>What I was proposing was something like, say, arch/i386/popularity.lst, >>>which would simply contain a list of the most popular n% of functions >>>sorted by popularity. As text, of course. >> >>I suspect that would certainlty work for pure function-based popularity, >>and yes, it has the advantage of being simple (especially for something >>that ends up being almost totally separated from the compiler: if we're >>using this purely to modify link scripts etc with special tools). >> >>But what about the unlikely/likely conditional hints that we currently do >>by hand? How are you going to sanely maintain a list of those without >>doing that in source code? > > > Dunno. Those bits are all anonymous so marking them in situ is about > the only way to go. But we can do better for whole functions. Would also make it easier to rank it as a percentage, or group by locality of reference to other functions, rather than just a binary split of "rare" vs "not-rare". Of course it's all very dependant on workload, which drivers you're using too, etc, etc. So a profile that's separate also makes it much easier to tweak for one machine than the source base in general, which theoretically represents everyone (and thus has little info ;-)). Which also makes me think it's easier to mark hot functions than cold ones, in a more general maintainance sense. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/