[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] mm/pg-r4k.c: Dump the generated code

To: Franck Bui-Huu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/pg-r4k.c: Dump the generated code
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:58:56 +0100 (BST)
Cc: Ralf Baechle <>, Thiemo Seufer <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:

> >  What would be the gain for the kernel from using "-march=4ksd" rather 
> > than "-march=mips32r2"?
> > 
> It actually results in a kernel image ~30kbytes smaller for the former
> case. It has been discussed sometimes ago on this list. I'm sorry but
> I don't know why...

 Perhaps the pipeline description for the 4KSd CPU is different from the 
default for the MIPS32r2 ISA.  Barring a study of GCC sources, if that 
really troubles you, you could build the same version of the kernel with 
these options:

1. "-march=mips32r2"

2. "-march=4ksd"

3. "-march=mips32r2 -mtune=4ksd"

and compare the results.  I expect the results of #2 and #3 to be the same 
and it would just back up my suggestion about keeping CPU-specific 
optimisations separate from the CPU selection.  Please also note that our 
optimisation model is for speed (-O2) rather than size (-Os), so if 
"-mtune=4ksd" yields smaller code than "-mtune=mips32r2", it just means it 
is safe for this CPU to shrink code where appropriate without losing 
performance.  One obvious place for such a choice is the use of the 
hardware multiplier vs shifts and additions where one multiplicand is a 

> >  What if you want to run a single kernel image regardless of the CPU 
> > installed in the system.  Rebuilding the kernel (or having to keep a large 
> > collection of binaries) just because you want to swap the CPU does not 
> > seem like a terribly attractive idea.  Some systems come with their CPU(s) 
> > on a daughtercard (each), you know...
> > 
> ok, I wasn't aware about this. You could have started by this point ;)

 Well, daughtercards for CPUs are so common for me -- the vast majority of 
MIPS-based systems I use have them -- that I have assumed, obviously 
incorrectly, that you see a benefit from such a rewrite of the TLB 
exception handlers which is large enough to justify the inconvenience of 
limiting the kernel to a given CPU card.

> So now I think the right direction is to stick with tlbex.c and
> make it smaller like Ralf did.

 That is certainly a good idea.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>