From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167041B0FF for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id e67so5586233pfe.10 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CoptIRjoXKaHip4IkepCkNf3pxTraoH2H4lAe1pbuoE=; b=0onuFRrvxF0+PG/Zv9HMT6/wljeYgYBurBlzw/Om08kSV1M5k7UHpOR9MgSWvlAuIs jd92PWj5TG7c2hNXdjqqjm7l4s8BMjG1/r/hFsxRpXHC0MDJ6wYgZ+DRSnAaslxX/YFk jHwhDERb6d/qqUQY+tN+8JYYdB08RnIwh7dbwY0qOG3liy5Sidk42w4FvK0WIVosHAhf +buQqTBw4JGvpfJpS7Oqz6nM6vc+BBXnsQRKg5PoLe4E+XEWxFZ/mjySud3tKJpaZp2D M7Uhkmc0NIlwVzZKzmCP9fBH2wcFGBgOR/zIfBlnKoEzfixAokDDdlR0i4VGccNMhpPB MBQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CoptIRjoXKaHip4IkepCkNf3pxTraoH2H4lAe1pbuoE=; b=Ucf6zdZDhP8Mgc9Jy/rr33LlJYyU2AGVcQAWpn9V5a7Z4x+IMn/CZribZW2KKmqXCZ 4Y4ugfqNdIfGNZtY9yzxXhQQT8s76IlhI8+dM3qNYv7b1cSJsT1qiMP6NFl/3ihG7kIL amCKzabTGkrW0MBK3S9LEsHgPvvZ/45ODkN0CSz7ViaweF+Kb5NSXnz9OMpVcXPDriR+ VxOmWOUoJOo8jzFjtCEak5AXkAnsAGVJ2pkiFlmlMWV4Qim6aeCsVwHYPzhD9zR2U5yd TpuoWw+hNN2uYmQSzWM+HGarZvyvTbUrDD+vi6rNEF2eEZxKCeQpGunM0RITSBq+zQ64 yGTw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4vCM7EXcFXmTFsC4WKQeZF2q6aJydWeWpMWiN4jn0snoK40Yx dvp9U15xbec9mQs93L3GCTP1zw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyKOzQlx0FKxg7WLUqMaA83twlCl1nT/d/m59kPKr10JUjU3jlj1xFlPyp34MHff/HHM9mzIQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:cc48:: with SMTP id q8mr30874325pgi.202.1556556650062; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r197sm27769658pfc.178.2019.04.29.09.50.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:42 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Mattias =?UTF-8?B?UsO2bm5ibG9t?= Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20190429095042.04b91231@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <3d280f7e-057f-a35c-bd2f-db401e46e110@ericsson.com> References: <3d280f7e-057f-a35c-bd2f-db401e46e110@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK and Link-time Optimizations X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:50:51 -0000 On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:47 +0200 Mattias R=C3=B6nnblom wrote: > Hi. >=20 > Did anyone on the list successfully build DPDK with GCC Link-time=20 > Optimizations (LTO) enabled? I tried and failed a while back, although=20 > the detailed reasons of my failure eludes me for the moment. >=20 > If LTO builds would work "out of the box", DPDK could gradually migrate=20 > from away from having static inline functions in the header files. >=20 > Those interested squeezing out as much performance as possible would=20 > build with LTO (and static linking), and those applications who cared=20 > more about independent upgrades would use dynamic linking and non-LTO=20 > builds. With the extra cost of using DPDK as a shared library=20 > (-fPIC-compiled code, more expensive TLS accesses etc), I'm guessing=20 > this is the case already today. >=20 > Regards, > Mattias I tried (and it worked) in the past. But you have to be consistent about always using the same flags. LTO also really makes compiler a pig and you need multiple Gig of memory. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E01A0679 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:50:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B876F1B104; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:50:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167041B0FF for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id e67so5586233pfe.10 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CoptIRjoXKaHip4IkepCkNf3pxTraoH2H4lAe1pbuoE=; b=0onuFRrvxF0+PG/Zv9HMT6/wljeYgYBurBlzw/Om08kSV1M5k7UHpOR9MgSWvlAuIs jd92PWj5TG7c2hNXdjqqjm7l4s8BMjG1/r/hFsxRpXHC0MDJ6wYgZ+DRSnAaslxX/YFk jHwhDERb6d/qqUQY+tN+8JYYdB08RnIwh7dbwY0qOG3liy5Sidk42w4FvK0WIVosHAhf +buQqTBw4JGvpfJpS7Oqz6nM6vc+BBXnsQRKg5PoLe4E+XEWxFZ/mjySud3tKJpaZp2D M7Uhkmc0NIlwVzZKzmCP9fBH2wcFGBgOR/zIfBlnKoEzfixAokDDdlR0i4VGccNMhpPB MBQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CoptIRjoXKaHip4IkepCkNf3pxTraoH2H4lAe1pbuoE=; b=Ucf6zdZDhP8Mgc9Jy/rr33LlJYyU2AGVcQAWpn9V5a7Z4x+IMn/CZribZW2KKmqXCZ 4Y4ugfqNdIfGNZtY9yzxXhQQT8s76IlhI8+dM3qNYv7b1cSJsT1qiMP6NFl/3ihG7kIL amCKzabTGkrW0MBK3S9LEsHgPvvZ/45ODkN0CSz7ViaweF+Kb5NSXnz9OMpVcXPDriR+ VxOmWOUoJOo8jzFjtCEak5AXkAnsAGVJ2pkiFlmlMWV4Qim6aeCsVwHYPzhD9zR2U5yd TpuoWw+hNN2uYmQSzWM+HGarZvyvTbUrDD+vi6rNEF2eEZxKCeQpGunM0RITSBq+zQ64 yGTw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4vCM7EXcFXmTFsC4WKQeZF2q6aJydWeWpMWiN4jn0snoK40Yx dvp9U15xbec9mQs93L3GCTP1zw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyKOzQlx0FKxg7WLUqMaA83twlCl1nT/d/m59kPKr10JUjU3jlj1xFlPyp34MHff/HHM9mzIQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:cc48:: with SMTP id q8mr30874325pgi.202.1556556650062; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r197sm27769658pfc.178.2019.04.29.09.50.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:50:42 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Mattias =?UTF-8?B?UsO2bm5ibG9t?= Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20190429095042.04b91231@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <3d280f7e-057f-a35c-bd2f-db401e46e110@ericsson.com> References: <3d280f7e-057f-a35c-bd2f-db401e46e110@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK and Link-time Optimizations X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190429165042.mRU-7w_y6I5CGQ0GRd-GupaG4ocrxScA55nq3LOvxIc@z> On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:47 +0200 Mattias R=C3=B6nnblom wrote: > Hi. >=20 > Did anyone on the list successfully build DPDK with GCC Link-time=20 > Optimizations (LTO) enabled? I tried and failed a while back, although=20 > the detailed reasons of my failure eludes me for the moment. >=20 > If LTO builds would work "out of the box", DPDK could gradually migrate=20 > from away from having static inline functions in the header files. >=20 > Those interested squeezing out as much performance as possible would=20 > build with LTO (and static linking), and those applications who cared=20 > more about independent upgrades would use dynamic linking and non-LTO=20 > builds. With the extra cost of using DPDK as a shared library=20 > (-fPIC-compiled code, more expensive TLS accesses etc), I'm guessing=20 > this is the case already today. >=20 > Regards, > Mattias I tried (and it worked) in the past. But you have to be consistent about always using the same flags. LTO also really makes compiler a pig and you need multiple Gig of memory.