christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
Mon Aug 6 06:12:28 UTC 2018
Am 06.08.2018 um 07:31 schrieb Chris Johns:
> On 06/08/2018 10:51, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 05/08/2018 19:39, Christian Mauderer wrote:
>>> Am 05.08.2018 um 04:00 schrieb Chris Johns:
>>>> I have been working on migrating covoar in the rtems-tools repo to DWARF. The
>>>> goal is remove objdump parsing and to get accurate details about the functions
>>>> being covered. This is an unfunded task.
>>>> The work has resulted in a close examination of inlined code in RTEMS and what I
>>>> saw alarmed me so I have added a report to the rtems-exeinfo tool in rtems-tools
>>>> (the change is to be posted for review once I get the coverage tests running).
>>>> A summary report for hello.exe on RTEMS 5 for SPARC is:
>>>> inlined funcs : 1412
>>>> total funcs : 1956
>>>> % inline funcs : 72%
>>>> total size : 174616
>>>> inline size : 81668
>>>> % inline size : 46%
>>>> This is a small application so it could be argued that skews the figures. A
>>>> large C/C++ application built with -O2 running on RTEMS 4.11 ARM reports the
>>>> inline usage as:
>>>> inlined funcs : 10370
>>>> total funcs : 17700
>>>> % inline funcs : 58%
>>>> total size : 3066240
>>>> inline size : 1249514
>>>> % inline size : 40%
>>>> This does not seem right to me.
>>>> The report is new and there could be issues in the DWARF handling that feeds
>>>> this report however I am posting this to start a discussion on the topic of
>>>> I attach the report for hello.exe. The `-i` option generates the inline report.
>>>> The first section is a summary showing the total number of functions in the
>>>> executable that have machine code and are flagged as inline. The report lists
>>>> the percentage of functions that are inlined and the percentage of machine code
>>>> that is inlined. The values seem high to me.
>>>> The second table lists inline functions that are repeated sorted from the
>>>> largest foot print to the smallest. The first column the total size of machine
>>>> code in the executable and the second column the number of instances.
>>>> The third table is the list of inline functions sorted from largest machine code
>>>> footprint to smallest. The second column are flags of which there is one. A `E`
>>>> indicates the inline function is also external which means the compiler has
>>>> created an external reference to this function, ie an address-of is being taken.
>>>> The third column is the address in the executable so you can take a look with
>>>> objdump at the machine code.
>>>> We need to ask some important question in relation to inlining. It is cheap to
>>>> add and we all feel the code we add needs to be fast and needs to be inlined but
>>>> does it really need to be inlined?
>>>> Some pieces of code do need to be inlined and the overhead is just that an
>>>> overhead, for example in the large C/C++ application there is a low level
>>>> volatile hardware write routing with close to 300 instances and a code size of
>>>> 10K. This code needs to be inlined for performance reasons but should the size
>>>> on average be 40 bytes, I doubt it.
>>>> Can we be more judicious with our use of the inline keyword?
>>>> Is the performance gain we really expect or is the actual overhead of a call
>>>> frame not worth saving?
>>>> What are the real costs of inlining a piece of code? It adds size to the
>>>> executable and depending on the code being inlined it complicates coverage
>>>> analysis be adding extra branch points.
>>>> The metrics to determine what should be inlined is complicated and I do not
>>>> think we have a suitable policy in place. I believe it is time we to create one.
>>>> The issue is not limited to our code, gcc, newlib and libstdc++ seem to have
>>>> some code that should be looked at more closely. For example __udivmoddi4, and
>>> Hello Chris,
>>> I just took a look at one of the first function in your list: __sprint_r
>>> As far as I can see, there is no explicit inline key word for that
>>> function. So in that case, the compiler decided that it would be a good
>>> idea to inline that function.
>> Thanks and yes. At this point in time I cannot tell what is happening and I am
>> not sure the tool is reporting accurate data, I need to investigate.
> I have updated the tool and report to show which inline functions are:
> - inlined by compiler
> - declared inline and not inlined
> - declared inline and inlined
> I have also fixed a quick hack I had where the size was the span from the low PC
> to the high PC, this was wrong. Inlined code can be split and moved when
> inlining creating a discontinuous address range. The size in the report is now
> the number of machine code bytes.
> The report will show any functions not inlined when asked to be inlined. We do
> not have any.
> The 'C' flag in the inlined table shows which functions the compiler has inlined.
With that list it is now much clearer which functions would be relevant
for a potential review.
>>> I'm not sure whether I might just haven't seen it but is there a
>>> possibility to distinguish between functions that have been inlined by
>>> the compiler and ones that have been inlined due to the "inline" keyword
>>> without looking at every definition?
>> I am not sure. The DWARF data is complex and detailed and I view this initial
>> step into the area of using DWARF to perform static analysis of RTEMS
>> executables as green.
>> DWARF does provide declaration attributes. I need to review the DWARF data and
>> standard to determine if we can tell what is declared inline and what has been
>> inlined. I think it would be good to know.
>>> Did you try compiling with size optimization? I would expect that the
>>> compiler would inline far less functions and maybe even ignore some
>>> "inline" keywords. As far as I know it's more of a hint to the compiler.
>> Not yet. A complete tool build with those options is a lot of effort and I am
>> still not comfortable the report is accurate. I think this is something that
>> should be done at some point. I think it would create an interesting data point.
>>> I would only worry about functions that are still inlined if size
>>> optimization is selected.
>> I think we need to review the functions we currently have tagged as inline. I
>> think the only way we can do this is with real data.
>>> That's the case when I tell the compiler to
>>> make the program as small as possible. In all other cases I want some
>>> well balanced optimum between speed and size. Inlining small functions
>>> is OK in that case if you ask me.
>> How do you define this, ie what is the inline policy we use?
>> How do you audit this?
Both questions are not simple to answer. It is most likely a case by
case decision. I think there are roughly two reasons for inlining:
- The code is short enough that it is smaller if it is inlined compared
to a function call.
- There is some performance reason.
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Christian Mauderer
email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
Fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
PGP: Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
More information about the devel