mm/backing-dev.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
"char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable.
It is better then "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two
variables.
Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
---
mm/backing-dev.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
index 7176af65b103..4982ccc63536 100644
--- a/mm/backing-dev.c
+++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info;
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info);
static struct class *bdi_class;
-static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)";
+static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)";
/*
* bdi_lock protects bdi_tree and updates to bdi_list. bdi_list has RCU
--
2.11.0
On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:26:37 +0800 liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com> wrote: > "char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable. > It is better then "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two > variables. > > ... > > --- a/mm/backing-dev.c > +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info; > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info); > > static struct class *bdi_class; > -static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)"; > +static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)"; > heh, fun patch. We actually do this quite a lot. grep -r "^[a-z].*char \*[a-z].*= \"" . is a pathetic pattern which catches a lot of them. However. I expected your patch to shrink the kernel a bit, but it has the opposite effect: hp2:/usr/src/25> size mm/backing-dev.o text data bss dec hex filename 21288 9396 3808 34492 86bc mm/backing-dev.o-before 21300 9428 3808 34536 86e8 mm/backing-dev.o-after Even .data became larger. I didn't investigate why.
From: Andrew Morton > Sent: 12 May 2022 21:01 > > On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:26:37 +0800 liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com> wrote: > > > "char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable. > > It is better then "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two > > variables. > > > > ... > > > > --- a/mm/backing-dev.c > > +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c > > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info; > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info); > > > > static struct class *bdi_class; > > -static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)"; > > +static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)"; > > > > heh, fun patch. We actually do this quite a lot. > > grep -r "^[a-z].*char \*[a-z].*= \"" . > > is a pathetic pattern which catches a lot of them. > > > However. I expected your patch to shrink the kernel a bit, but it has > the opposite effect: > > hp2:/usr/src/25> size mm/backing-dev.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 21288 9396 3808 34492 86bc mm/backing-dev.o-before > 21300 9428 3808 34536 86e8 mm/backing-dev.o-after > > Even .data became larger. I didn't investigate why. The linker can merge replicated strings (ie data in .rodata.str1.n sections) but I don't think the compiler puts variables into that section. So if you have: static const char *const foo_xxx = "foo"; in multiple source/object files you get lots of pointers but only one string. OTOH with: static const char foo_xxx[] = "foo"; you get lots of copies of the string. Which is smaller depends on the number of variables and the length of the string. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:06:23AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Andrew Morton > > Sent: 12 May 2022 21:01 > > > > On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:26:37 +0800 liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com> wrote: > > > > > "char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable. > > > It is better then "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two > > > variables. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > --- a/mm/backing-dev.c > > > +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c > > > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info; > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info); > > > > > > static struct class *bdi_class; > > > -static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)"; > > > +static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)"; > > > > > > > heh, fun patch. We actually do this quite a lot. > > > > grep -r "^[a-z].*char \*[a-z].*= \"" . > > > > is a pathetic pattern which catches a lot of them. > > > > > > However. I expected your patch to shrink the kernel a bit, but it has > > the opposite effect: > > > > hp2:/usr/src/25> size mm/backing-dev.o > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 21288 9396 3808 34492 86bc mm/backing-dev.o-before > > 21300 9428 3808 34536 86e8 mm/backing-dev.o-after > > > > Even .data became larger. I didn't investigate why. > > The linker can merge replicated strings > (ie data in .rodata.str1.n sections) > but I don't think the compiler puts variables into that section. > > So if you have: > static const char *const foo_xxx = "foo"; > in multiple source/object files you get lots of pointers > but only one string. > OTOH with: > static const char foo_xxx[] = "foo"; > you get lots of copies of the string. > Which is smaller depends on the number of variables and the length > of the string. > Good point. I have searched the whole code. There are 19 places where use the string "(unknown)". Seems it is better to drop this change. arch/mips/alchemy/devboards/db1xxx.c:48: return "(unknown)"; drivers/acpi/device_pm.c:44: return "(unknown)"; drivers/base/component.c:101: component ? dev_name(component->dev) : "(unknown)", drivers/block/rbd.c:5137: spec->image_id, spec->image_name ?: "(unknown)", drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c:570: return "(unknown)"; drivers/i3c/master/mipi-i3c-hci/ext_caps.c:50: "(unknown)", "master only", "target only", drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/fwil.c:85: return "(unknown)"; drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:7506: thinkpad_id.ec_version_str : "(unknown)"); drivers/usb/gadget/udc/omap_udc.c:2800: type = "(unknown)"; fs/cifs/cifs_swn.c:653: seq_puts(m, "(unknown)"); fs/cifs/cifsfs.c:434: seq_puts(s, "(unknown)"); fs/ext4/super.c:835: path = "(unknown)"; include/drm/drm_mode_object.h:118: return "(unknown)"; \ lib/error-inject.c:187: return "(unknown)"; mm/backing-dev.c:23:static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)"; mm/filemap.c:3664: path = "(unknown)"; net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c:444: type_str = "(unknown)"; net/ipv6/calipso.c:384: type_str = "(unknown)"; sound/firewire/dice/dice-proc.c:35: return "(unknown)"; Thanks.
在 2022年05月13日 04:00, Andrew Morton 写道: > On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:26:37 +0800 liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com> wrote: > >> "char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable. >> It is better then "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two >> variables. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c >> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info; >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info); >> >> static struct class *bdi_class; >> -static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)"; >> +static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)"; >> > heh, fun patch. We actually do this quite a lot. > > grep -r "^[a-z].*char \*[a-z].*= \"" . > > is a pathetic pattern which catches a lot of them. > > > However. I expected your patch to shrink the kernel a bit, but it has > the opposite effect: > > hp2:/usr/src/25> size mm/backing-dev.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 21288 9396 3808 34492 86bc mm/backing-dev.o-before > 21300 9428 3808 34536 86e8 mm/backing-dev.o-after > > Even .data became larger. I didn't investigate why. Hi, It seems the patch creates a new section: 0000000000000000 l ___ksymtab_gpl+bdi_dev_name 0000000000000000 __ksymtab_bdi_dev_name 0000000000000f60 l O .rodata 000000000000000a bdi_unknown_name And put "bdi_unknown_name" at .rodata.str1.1: This work was published in "KernelJanitors/Todo". It says: "foo []" is better because it declares a single variable, For variables marked __initdata, the "*foo" form causes only the pointer, not the string itself, to be dropped from the kernel image, which is a bug. Using the "foo[]" form with regular 'ole local variables also makes the assembly shorter. I thought it make sense, so i searched the mm tree by "grep -nHre char.*\*.*=.*\"", and checked all the "char *foo" string form, It seems only this one should be fixed.
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 04:26:37PM +0800, liqiong wrote: > "char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable. > It is better then "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two > variables. > Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying here. Creating two variables means what? Thanks. > Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com> > --- > mm/backing-dev.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c > index 7176af65b103..4982ccc63536 100644 > --- a/mm/backing-dev.c > +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info; > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info); > > static struct class *bdi_class; > -static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)"; > +static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)"; > > /* > * bdi_lock protects bdi_tree and updates to bdi_list. bdi_list has RCU > -- > 2.11.0 > >
在 2022年05月12日 23:29, Muchun Song 写道: > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 04:26:37PM +0800, liqiong wrote: >> "char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable. >> It is better then "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two >> variables. >> > Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying here. Creating > two variables means what? > > Thanks. Hi there, The string form of "char *" creates two variables in the final assembly output, a static string, and a char pointer to the static string. Use "objdump -S -D *.o", can find out the static string occurring at "Contents of section .rodata". > >> Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com> >> --- >> mm/backing-dev.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c >> index 7176af65b103..4982ccc63536 100644 >> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c >> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info; >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info); >> >> static struct class *bdi_class; >> -static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)"; >> +static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)"; >> >> /* >> * bdi_lock protects bdi_tree and updates to bdi_list. bdi_list has RCU >> -- >> 2.11.0 >> >> -- 李力琼 <13524287433> 上海市浦东新区海科路99号中科院上海高等研究院3号楼3楼
"char bdi_unknown_nam[]" string form declares a single variable.
It is better than "char *bdi_unknown_name" which creates two
variables.
Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
---
mm/backing-dev.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
index 7176af65b103..4982ccc63536 100644
--- a/mm/backing-dev.c
+++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info noop_backing_dev_info;
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(noop_backing_dev_info);
static struct class *bdi_class;
-static const char *bdi_unknown_name = "(unknown)";
+static const char bdi_unknown_name[] = "(unknown)";
/*
* bdi_lock protects bdi_tree and updates to bdi_list. bdi_list has RCU
--
2.11.0
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.