On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:07:52AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:26:38PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:29:44AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 09:00:58AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 09:54:05AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:49:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: ... > > [1] A simple test that we can do at the moment is to compare a > production xfs.ko with one with asserts enabled. My local for-next > branch builds a module of 40104000 bytes without XFS_WARN and 40540208 > bytes with XFS_WARN enabled. That makes for a difference of ~425k and > roughly a 1% code size increase (accounting for ~1750 asserts and > supporting code). > FWIW, the huge size here didn't register to me until Darrick mentioned it on irc. I'm guessing I have a bunch of debug enabled in my kernel config (that I don't really want to disable right now). If I strip the resulting module binaries, I end up with 1076736 bytes vs. 1210624 bytes (for a 130kb delta and ~12% increase), which I'm guessing is a more accurate assessment. Brian > [2] We may not want to use ASSERT() here, but perhaps define a new > variant to omit the stack trace and otherwise customize to a verifier > report. > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > > > -- > > Dave Chinner > > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
