Can we undo the octeon hack?

[Juli Mallett]

I know I shouldn't say this, but: How hard can it be? :P

In kern.pre.mk:

CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH?=100
CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH?=1000
CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE?=/* XXX what is default? */
CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=${CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH}
CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=${CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH}
CFLAGS+= --param max-inline-insns-single=${CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE}

And then in the Octeon config:

makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH=10000
makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH=100000
makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE=10000

Right?

Come up with a better name scheme, win 1/20 of 1 US cent.  (Not
redeemable for cash.)

Most users will never see it; only Octeon needs such behaviour because
of how the Simple Executive is implemented.

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:
> .... ok, so, what's the game plan? :)
>
>
>
> -adrian
>
> On 21 July 2013 18:47, Juli Mallett <juli at clockworksquid.com> wrote:
>> Do you think we should gate moving this singular hack to the Octeon
>> config file on breaking out a bunch of std.foo files now? :)  I was
>> just saying that if you're advocating doing that work, we should do
>> some more generalized stuff, too.  Like, std.pcidriversandwhatnot
>> should be machine-independent and would reduce a lot of maintenance
>> between architectures, that kind of thing.  I don't think any of it
>> should gate moving INLINE_CFLAG_SOMETHING_FOO_WHATEVER_BISCUIT_* into
>> the Octeon kernel config and out of sys/conf.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>> I would too, but let's not gate a solution to this problem on that.
>>>
>>> Warner
>>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would really like a std.pci or something, too, so we don't have to
>>>> enumerate all the PCI devices in every config.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>>>> These should really be in the std.foo files for each specific subport. That way atheros could have one set, and octeon could have another.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do know that we don't do the std.foo thing for the atheros config files, but we really should start, and this would be a good place to start...
>>>>>
>>>>> Warner
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Making it possible to override each value would be ideal but
>>>>>> cumbersome.  If you want to do that, by all means do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Juli.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013-07-21, at 11:44, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Juli/Warner,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible to undo this particular hack, and allow these values to
>>>>>>> be overridden in the kernel config files?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from kern.pre.mk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CFLAGS= ${COPTFLAGS} ${C_DIALECT} ${DEBUG} ${CWARNFLAGS}
>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= ${INCLUDES} -D_KERNEL -DHAVE_KERNEL_OPTION_HEADERS -include
>>>>>>> opt_global.h
>>>>>>> .if ${COMPILER_TYPE} != "clang"
>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= -fno-common -finline-limit=${INLINE_LIMIT}
>>>>>>> .if ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} != "mips"
>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=100
>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=1000
>>>>>>> .else
>>>>>>> # XXX Actually a gross hack just for Octeon because of the Simple Executive.
>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=10000
>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=100000
>>>>>>> CFLAGS+= --param max-inline-insns-single=10000
>>>>>>> .endif
>>>>>>> .endif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to be able to experiment with different inline settings in
>>>>>>> order to try and squeeze kernels down to be smaller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -adrian
>>>>>
>>>