On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 17:37 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:17:53AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 17:05 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > > > Op 15-03-18 om 14:30 schreef Ville Syrjälä: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:02:15PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > drm_printk is used for both DRM_ERROR and DRM_DEBUG with unnecessary > > > > > > arguments that can be removed by creating separate functins. > > > > > > > > > > > > Create specific functions for these calls to reduce x86/64 defconfig > > > > > > size by ~20k. > > > > > > > > > > > > Modify the existing macros to use the specific calls. > > > > > > > > > > > > new: > > > > > > $ size -t drivers/gpu/drm/built-in.a | tail -1 > > > > > > 1876562 44542 995 1922099 1d5433 (TOTALS) > > > > > > > > > > > > old: > > > > > > $ size -t drivers/gpu/drm/built-in.a | tail -1 > > > > > > 1897565 44542 995 1943102 1da63e (TOTALS) > > > > > > > > > > > > Miscellanea: > > > > > > > > > > > > o intel_display requires a change to use the specific calls. > > > > > > > > > > How much would we lose if we move the (drm_debug&FOO) outside the > > > > > functions again? > > > > again? > > We used to do that. Someone changed it a while back, unintentially > I believe. > > > > > > > > I'm somewhat concerned about all the function call > > > > > overhead when debugs aren't even enabled. > > > > Perhaps better to have compilation elimination > > of the entire debug output instead. > > That would require every bug reporter to recompile the kernel first. > So this is not a solution we would ever seriously consider. > > Not sure if it would be possible to use the alternatives thing to > eliminate the function calls unless the user boots wih drm.debug!=0? > > > > > I think you are discussing a different issue and > > this discussion should not block this patch as > > this patch has no impact other than code size > > reduction. > > But what is the goal of the code size reduction? Smaller code. > I assume the main > goal is to make better use of the instruction cache to make the > code faster. If there's a tradeoff between smaller and slightly > faster vs. larger and a singificantly faster I tend to think we > should go for the latter option. There's no trade-off in this patch for faster/larger. This patch is simply smaller. Smaller is better. Your faster/larger should be a different patch proposal. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
