Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: 回复:[PATCH] riscv: optimize ELF relo cation function in riscv | Date | Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:32:17 +0000 |
| |
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.
| |