[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1k_cq3NOUeuQC4-uKDBaGq49GSjAMSiS_M9AVMBxv51g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 23:20:32 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] Add support for Clang LTO
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:10 PM 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built
Linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:00 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:43 PM 'Sami Tolvanen' via Clang Built Linux
> > <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:15 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - one build seems to take even longer to link. It's currently at 35GB RAM
> > > > usage and 40 minutes into the final link, but I'm worried it might
> > > > not complete
> > > > before it runs out of memory. I only have 128GB installed, and google-chrome
> > > > uses another 30GB of that, and I'm also doing some other builds in parallel.
> > > > Is there a minimum recommended amount of memory for doing LTO builds?
> > >
> > > When building arm64 defconfig, the maximum memory usage I measured
> > > with ThinLTO was 3.5 GB, and with full LTO 20.3 GB. I haven't measured
> > > larger configurations, but I believe LLD can easily consume 3-4x that
> > > much with full LTO allyesconfig.
> >
> > Ok, that's not too bad then. Is there actually a reason to still
> > support full-lto
> > in your series? As I understand it, full LTO was the initial approach and
> > used to work better, but thin LTO is actually what we want to use in the
> > long run. Perhaps dropping the full LTO option from your series now
> > that thin LTO works well enough and uses less resources would help
> > avoid some of the problems.
>
> While all developers agree that ThinLTO is a much more palatable
> experience than full LTO; our product teams prefer the excessive build
> time and memory high water mark (at build time) costs in exchange for
> slightly better performance than ThinLTO in <benchmarks that I've been
> told are important>. Keeping support for full LTO in tree would help
> our product teams reduce the amount of out of tree code they have. As
> long as <benchmarks that I've been told are important> help
> sell/differentiate phones, I suspect our product teams will continue
> to ship full LTO in production.
Ok, fair enough. How about marking FULL_LTO as 'depends on
!COMPILE_TEST' then? I'll do that locally for my randconfig tests,
but it would help the other build bots that also force-enable
COMPILE_TEST.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
