Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:12:38 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Juli Mallett <juli@clockworksquid.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-mips@freebsd.org" <freebsd-mips@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Can we undo the octeon hack? Message-ID: <793CB840-40AF-487E-99A0-2C34FF17FD11@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CACVs6=8VT0dQug%2B8od45VvoJQn1f-2j%2Bu%2BidMXC3SFz9iLyd7A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmonJg2BhBdckFb1O79ZnWrXKZhT%2Bku9SjuswLui6iZC1Ow@mail.gmail.com> <6401792509903023722@unknownmsgid> <F0B68A50-B5BF-426E-874C-1EFC03CAEAEB@bsdimp.com> <CACVs6=_Ss_C0v_eHFzOsM1QKi43EU4j3SUmOTsC=XmhMFPqeAw@mail.gmail.com> <8C6BE511-2CCD-434F-BE72-43F350E8AA2C@bsdimp.com> <CACVs6=9mjoB7LQ4OkvT7CJ8b0cG_G9o9XJsAauqxUYwo7MFpkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmoniT-2cX9y%2BcfQJQ7OwMnbvjB1gTHym_LT=ngy8AnuN2g@mail.gmail.com> <CACVs6=8VT0dQug%2B8od45VvoJQn1f-2j%2Bu%2BidMXC3SFz9iLyd7A@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
> I know I shouldn't say this, but: How hard can it be? :P
How hard do you want it to be?
> In kern.pre.mk:
>
> CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH?=100
> CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH?=1000
> CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE?=/* XXX what is default? */
> CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=${CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH}
> CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=${CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH}
> CFLAGS+= --param max-inline-insns-single=${CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE}
>
> And then in the Octeon config:
>
> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH=10000
> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH=100000
> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE=10000
>
> Right?
Other than being completely wrong, this looks good... :)
> Come up with a better name scheme, win 1/20 of 1 US cent. (Not
> redeemable for cash.)
>
> Most users will never see it; only Octeon needs such behaviour because
> of how the Simple Executive is implemented.
Except we'd need it in every octeon config file :(
Warner
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> .... ok, so, what's the game plan? :)
>>
>>
>>
>> -adrian
>>
>> On 21 July 2013 18:47, Juli Mallett <juli@clockworksquid.com> wrote:
>>> Do you think we should gate moving this singular hack to the Octeon
>>> config file on breaking out a bunch of std.foo files now? :) I was
>>> just saying that if you're advocating doing that work, we should do
>>> some more generalized stuff, too. Like, std.pcidriversandwhatnot
>>> should be machine-independent and would reduce a lot of maintenance
>>> between architectures, that kind of thing. I don't think any of it
>>> should gate moving INLINE_CFLAG_SOMETHING_FOO_WHATEVER_BISCUIT_* into
>>> the Octeon kernel config and out of sys/conf.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>>> I would too, but let's not gate a solution to this problem on that.
>>>>
>>>> Warner
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would really like a std.pci or something, too, so we don't have to
>>>>> enumerate all the PCI devices in every config.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> These should really be in the std.foo files for each specific subport. That way atheros could have one set, and octeon could have another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do know that we don't do the std.foo thing for the atheros config files, but we really should start, and this would be a good place to start...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warner
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Making it possible to override each value would be ideal but
>>>>>>> cumbersome. If you want to do that, by all means do!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Juli.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2013-07-21, at 11:44, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Juli/Warner,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it possible to undo this particular hack, and allow these values to
>>>>>>>> be overridden in the kernel config files?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from kern.pre.mk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS= ${COPTFLAGS} ${C_DIALECT} ${DEBUG} ${CWARNFLAGS}
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= ${INCLUDES} -D_KERNEL -DHAVE_KERNEL_OPTION_HEADERS -include
>>>>>>>> opt_global.h
>>>>>>>> .if ${COMPILER_TYPE} != "clang"
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= -fno-common -finline-limit=${INLINE_LIMIT}
>>>>>>>> .if ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} != "mips"
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=100
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=1000
>>>>>>>> .else
>>>>>>>> # XXX Actually a gross hack just for Octeon because of the Simple Executive.
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=10000
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=100000
>>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param max-inline-insns-single=10000
>>>>>>>> .endif
>>>>>>>> .endif
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to be able to experiment with different inline settings in
>>>>>>>> order to try and squeeze kernels down to be smaller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?793CB840-40AF-487E-99A0-2C34FF17FD11>