Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clang LTO Support For The Linux Kernel Spun Up A Seventh Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clang LTO Support For The Linux Kernel Spun Up A Seventh Time

    Phoronix: Clang LTO Support For The Linux Kernel Spun Up A Seventh Time

    Google engineers have sent out their latest patches for allowing the mainline Linux kernel to be built with LLVM Clang link-time optimizations (LTO) for greater performance and possibly size benefits...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...g-LTO-Linux-v7

  • #2
    Good news. I wondering how much more work is needed to make LTOing possible with the GCC. I know that there was some patch set floating around but AFAIK it is not usable anymore?

    Comment


    • #3
      A Microsoft employee did some kernel LTO+PGO benchmark with GCC 9.2.1. You can find his slides from the last Linux plumbers here

      Comment


      • #4
        By the way, if you want to try out the most recent patchset on x86, just visit his github repo and download the sources from the clang-lto branch. It compiled fine for me, just be sure to not have the "Trim unused/obsolete symbols" option enabled as it would blow up with a lot of modprobe issues then.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ub42 View Post
          A Microsoft employee did some kernel LTO+PGO benchmark with GCC 9.2.1. You can find his slides from the last Linux plumbers here
          Thx! I remember but I thought he did it with Clang.

          Comment


          • #6
            "Google notes they have used a Clang LTO+CFI build for their Linux kernel on "millions of Pixel devices" with Android since 2018."

            It doesn't matter how many millions or billions, anything but -O2 will always be unstable for mainline kernel developers.
            ## VGA ##
            AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
            Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

            Comment


            • #7
              Thank you but I'll stick with GCC and -O2.

              Comment


              • #8
                Just say no to GCC.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by r08z View Post
                  Thank you but I'll stick with GCC and -O2.
                  Any actual reason why?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X