On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:18 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025, at 18:45, Rong Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 1:29 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yes. The order could be conditional. As a matter of fact, the first > > version was conditional. > > I changed it based on the reviewer comments to reduce conditions for > > more maintainable code. > > I would like to work from the ld.bfd side to see if we can fix the problem. > > Makes sense. At least once we understand what makes the linker so slow > and fix future versions, it should also be possible to come up with > a more effective workaround for the existing linkers that suffer from it. @Arnd: Can you send me the instructions to reproduce this regression? I tried my x86-64 machine in v6.13 kernel with the following ld.bfd: (1) GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.36.90.20210703 (2) GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.39.90.20221231 (3) GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.42.50.20240625 They all used about ~2s to link vmlinux.o. The config I used was "make randconfig". Thanks, -Rong > > Arnd
