lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: 回复:[PATCH] riscv: optimize ELF relo cation function in riscv
Date
On 25/07/2023 10:18, 李筱云(李筱云) wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>>On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 12:35:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:32:12AM +0800, Amma Lee wrote:
> >> > The patch can optimize the running times of insmod command by modify ELF
> >> > relocation function.
> >> > In the 5.10 and latest kernel, when install the riscv ELF drivers which
> >> > contains multiple symbol table items to be relocated, kernel takes a lot
> >> > of time to execute the relocation. For example, we install a 3+MB driver
> >> > need 180+s.
> >> > We focus on the riscv architecture handle R_RISCV_HI20 and R_RISCV_LO20
> >> > type items relocation function in the arch\riscv\kernel\module.c and
> >> > find that there are two-loops in the function. If we modify the begin
> >> > number in the second for-loops iteration, we could save significant time
> >> > for installation. We install the same 3+MB driver could just need 2s.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Amma Lee <lixiaoyun@binary-semi.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >> >  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> I guess this is a v3 of [1]? But there's no change log here to know
> >> what's different.
> >>
> >> [1] 1683881513-18730-1-git-send-email-lixiaoyun@binary-semi.com
> >
> >It's also still got the checkpatch issues (and possibly others) that
>>were pointed out previously.
>
> I'm sorry for the duplicate emails. Because we released this patch many times, the first
> patch was based on 5.10. Later we verified this issue on kernel 6.4, then we released a new
> patch based on the 6.4 kernel. Since we never got any reply, we don't know how to proceed
> with this patch.
>
> BR,
> Amma
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 发件人:Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 发送时间:2023年7月3日(星期一) 18:48
> 收件人:Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
> 抄 送:李筱云(李筱云) <lixiaoyun@binary-semi.com>; paul.walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>; palmer <palmer@dabbelt.com>; aou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>; 谢振新(谢振新) <xiezx@binary-semi.com>; linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>; linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> 主 题:Re: [PATCH] riscv: optimize ELF relocation function in riscv
>
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 12:35:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:32:12AM +0800, Amma Lee wrote:
> > > The patch can optimize the running times of insmod command by modify ELF
> > > relocation function.
> > > In the 5.10 and latest kernel, when install the riscv ELF drivers which
> > > contains multiple symbol table items to be relocated, kernel takes a lot
> > > of time to execute the relocation. For example, we install a 3+MB driver
> > > need 180+s.
> > > We focus on the riscv architecture handle R_RISCV_HI20 and R_RISCV_LO20
> > > type items relocation function in the arch\riscv\kernel\module.c and
> > > find that there are two-loops in the function. If we modify the begin
> > > number in the second for-loops iteration, we could save significant time
> > > for installation. We install the same 3+MB driver could just need 2s.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Amma Lee <lixiaoyun@binary-semi.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > I guess this is a v3 of [1]? But there's no change log here to know
> > what's different.
> >
> > [1] 1683881513-18730-1-git-send-email-lixiaoyun@binary-semi.com
>
> It's also still got the checkpatch issues (and possibly others) that
> were pointed out previously.
>
> Cheers,
> Conor.
>
> Also, when applying the patch:
> warning: arch/riscv/kernel/module.c has type 100644, expected 100755
>
>

Firstly, please no html mails. The mailing list will reject them :/

There was no changelog to indicate what is different from the prior
submissions, nor were the issues pointed out by checkpatch resolved.

It's considered impolite to post another version of a patch, without
addressing comments that were pointed out on the previous submission.
Please fix up the things pointed out by checkpatch (and please run it
with the --strict argument) and resubmit a v4, that contains a changelog
under the --- line, explaining what is different between this patch &
v4.

Thanks,
Conor.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-07-25 11:36    [W:0.046 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site