On 02/02/2022 11:20, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 01/02/2022 17:28, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 07:09:14PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2022, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 11:15:31AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Quicky and dirty hack based on some old ideas. Thought maybe the
approach might
interest the Arm port guys. But with IS_GEN_RANGE removed easy gains
are not so
big so meh.. Maybe some more easy wins with IS_DISPLAY_VER but I
haven't looked
into that side.
3884664 449681 6720 4341065 423d49 i915.ko.tip
3599989 429034 6688 4035711 3d947f i915.ko.noigp
By these numbers probably it's hard to justify. Another thing to
consider
is that it's very common to have on the same system both
integrated and discrete - doing this would remove at compile time any
chance of driving the integrated one.
I guess the point was, the arm systems won't have integrated, and it's
anyway going to be a separate build.
so probably the focus and argument here should not be about size
reduction. From patch 1 I see:
+config DRM_I915_INTEGRATED_GPU_SUPPORT
+ bool "Support integrated GPUs"
+ default y
+ depends on DRM_I915
+ help
+ Include support for integrated GPUs.
If it's something that depends on arch rather than providing an
option in menuconfig, then I think it could be some interesting
investigation. However, I can't see how it would help with removing
some code paths in the driver (e.g. the clflush() calls we were talking
about in another patch series) since the code elimination would all
happen at link time.
Clflush class of problems is yet another orthogonal set of problems.
Yes, idea was that the Kconfig option would be selected by Arm, or
deselected by x86, whatever. But there is also a case for letting it be
user visible.
In general, I thought at least, we should look into not
building/deploying binary code for irrelevant hardware on Arm builds. If
that is clear and agreeable then I think the approach how to get there
is really multi-pronged.
1)
What you are partly doing with "clflush" type series. Make Arm relevant
code paths actually compile on Arm.
2a)
What I sent in this series - it's simple/easy dead code elimination from
a single compilation unit.
2b)
*If* we resurrected GRAPHICS_VER check where "ver" is part of the macro,
eg. not doing "if (GRAPHICS_VER <=> N)" but "if (GRAPHICS_VERN)", or "if
IS_GRAPHICS_VER(N, FOREVER)", then the same approach would be more
effective.
Because if N or range is the macro parameter, we can make it dead code
based on Kconfig.
This is what I demonstrated few years ago by being able to compile out
~3rd of a driver when selecting only execlists platforms, AFAIR.
And which is why I was a bit unhappy this was getting removed not so
long ago.
The main problem with that, as well as the Kconfig here, is maintenance.
If it's fancy but unused, it's just added complexity for no benefit,
just the drawbacks. Every change needs to take the complexity into
account. If it's unused and untested, it's just going to bitrot anyway.
For example, I think a config option for disabling igfx should have both
build and runtime testing in place before we should consider taking on
the burden of maintaining it. Otherwise it's just haphazard struggle,
and the burden falls on a handful of interested people working on it on
the side, occasionally fixing things as they break. And they'll break
because nobody else cares.
If someone shows up and says i915.ko is too big, they need to be serious
enough to invest in maintaining the configurable size reductions, per
target platform.
Yeah no disagreement for the most part.
Whether there is a cheap way (as in maintenance/intrusiveness) which
brings gains large enough.
In my view it is also not a question of "too big" per se, but a question
of professional pride of doing things properly, even if it is hard,
instead of padding the binaries with dead code and sending them on
rounds over the world, to "use electrons" unreachable on uncountable
hypothetical customer machines and travel as updates over undersea
cables for no use. :D Just because we, sitting on the source/upstream,
decided it's too hard.
Not pressuring anything though, we are not quite there yet to worry
about scale deployments of Intel discrete on !x86. There is time. :)
I've thrown some seeds out there, if they don't take, they don't. It is
fine to tackle the "make it build and work" steps first.
Regards,
Tvrtko
