Message-ID: <d642a431-41f9-fef5-0c7f-c4cf133c945e@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:10:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/uv: make const pointer dots a static const
 array
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@hpe.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@googlemail.com>,
        Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com>,
        Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@hpe.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20211127170320.77963-1-colin.i.king@gmail.com>
 <YaZ8vtajDKUVDCne@swahl-home.5wahls.com>
 <c5a827c2b690aeadf7d633c29edaf4db23d94fdb.camel@perches.com>
 <YafrrfwAMzxrPvWU@swahl-home.5wahls.com>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YafrrfwAMzxrPvWU@swahl-home.5wahls.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 12/1/21 22:39, Steve Wahl wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 04:26:39PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 13:34 -0600, Steve Wahl wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 05:03:20PM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>> Don't populate the const array dots on the stack
>> []
>>> Examination of the disassembly shows that the compiler actually
>>> eliminates the creation of the pointer "dots" on the stack and just
>>> passes the address of the string constant to the printk function.
>>>
>>> So this change should not have any actual effect (I don't know where
>>> you got the "shrinks object code" from), and in my humble opinion
>>> makes the code less clear.
>>
>> Probably shrinks an allmodconfig where the symbols are referenced.
>> It probably doesn't do anything to a defconfig.
> 
> OK, I looked. Under allmodconfig, the new code is one byte smaller.
> 
> Defconfig doesn't include CONFIG_X86_UV and this file doesn't get
> compiled.
> 
> Using defconfig plus CONFIG_X86_UV and prerequisites, the new code is
> 24 bytes larger, probably because of alignment added.
> 
> allmodconfig:
> 
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>   30827	  18358	   1472	  50657	   c5e1	uv_nmi.o
>   30828	  18358	   1472	  50658	   c5e2	uv_nmi.orig.o
> 
> default config + CONFIG_X86_UV:
> 
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>    9918	    216	    160	  10294	   2836	uv_nmi.o
>    9894	    216	    160	  10270	   281e	uv_nmi.orig.o
> 
> So I still don't think this patch makes sense.

I agree, so I've dropped this patch from the queue.

Regards,

Hans