[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=hL=Vt1ATYqky9jmv+tM5hpTnLRuZudG-7ki0EYoFGJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:09:54 -0800
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
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 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.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
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.
