[U-Boot] Relocation size penalty calculation
Graeme Russ
graeme.russ at gmail.com
Sun Oct 11 03:31:26 CEST 2009
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:18 AM, J. William Campbell
<jwilliamcampbell at comcast.net> wrote:
> Graeme Russ wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote on 10/10/2009 12:38:19:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>>>> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote on 10/10/2009 10:46:52:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>>>>>> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote on 10/10/2009 06:43:52:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
>>>>>>>> <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM, J. William Campbell
>>>>>>>>>> <jwilliamcampbell at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Russ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:58 AM, J. William Campbell
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jwilliamcampbell at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Russ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Out of curiosity, I wanted to see just how much of a size
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incurring by using gcc -fpic / ld -pic on my x86 u-boot build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the results (fixed width font will help - its space, not tab,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formatted):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section non-reloc reloc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .text 000118c4 000137fc <- 0x1f38 bytes (~8kB)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bigger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .rodata 00005bad 000059d0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .interp n/a 00000013
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .dynstr n/a 00000648
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .hash n/a 00000428
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eh_frame 00003268 000034fc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .data 00000a6c 000001dc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .data.rel n/a 00000098
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .data.rel.ro.local n/a 00000178
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .data.rel.local n/a 000007e4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .got 00000000 000001f0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .got.plt n/a 0000000c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .rel.got n/a 000003e0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .rel.dyn n/a 00001228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .dynsym n/a 00000850
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .dynamic n/a 00000080
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .u_boot_cmd 000003c0 000003c0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .bss 00001a34 00001a34
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .realmode 00000166 00000166
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .bios 0000053e 0000053e
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total 0001d5dd 00022287 <- 0x4caa bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (~19kB) bigger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its more than a 16% increase in size!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .text accounts for a little under half of the total bloat, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the crude dynamic loader accounts for only 341 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Graeme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in a third option (column), the x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just -mrelocateable but NOT -fpic. It will not be definitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be extra code that references the GOT and missing code to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the relocation, but it would still be interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> x86 does not have -mrelocatable. This is a PPC only option :(
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Graeme,
>>>>>>>>>>> You are unfortunately correct. However, I wonder if we
>>>>>>>>>>> can get
>>>>>>>>>>> essentially the same result by executing the final ld step with
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> --emit-relocs switch included. This may also include some "extra"
>>>>>>>>>>> sections
>>>>>>>>>>> that we would want to strip out, but if it works, it could give
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> ELF-based systems a way to a relocatable u-boot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think --emit-relocs is necessary with -pic. I haven't gone
>>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>> all the permutations to see if there is a smaller option, but gcc
>>>>>>>>>> -fpic and
>>>>>>>>>> ld -pie creates enough information to perform relocation on the
>>>>>>>>>> x86
>>>>>>>>>> platform
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try -fvisibility=hidden
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks - Shaved another 2539 bytes off the binary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also found out how to get rid of .eh_frame (crept in when I upgraded
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> gcc 4.4.1) with -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm, so that shaves another 13452
>>>>>>>> bytes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Total saving of 15.6k
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great, so now you are back at just a few percent added I guess?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really - The .eh_frame saving applies to both relocated and non
>>>>>> relocated builds
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so you didn't use PIC before at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway I think you can do more. Using -Bsymbolic you should get
>>>>> away with RELATIVE relocs only and be able to skip a lot of segments
>>>>> above.
>>>>> Have a look at uClibc ldso/ldso/dl-startup.c
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My build options thus far are:
>>>>
>>>> PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fpie -fvisibility=hidden
>>>> PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm
>>>> PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -pie
>>>>
>>>> -fpic / -pic make no difference
>>>>
>>>
>>> not on x86, on ppc it is a big difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, -Bsymbolic adds exactly 8 bytes to .dynamic, but doesn't
>>>> change the size of any other section
>>>>
>>>> Pulling apart the relocation sections, it seems that all relocations are
>>>> already RELATIVE even without -Bsymbolic
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, that is because you built an exe with -pie
>>> Then you should be able to drop everything but the RELATIVE
>>> from the linking, or almost in any case.
>>>
>>> Jocke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, so its seems I may have hit the limit. I tried:
>>
>> PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -r --emit-relocs
>>
>> but there is not enough information left to complete the relocation.
>
> Hi Graeme,
> I am glad you tried this. It should work, -fpie should not be necessary.
> Did you also change PLATFORM_RELFLAGS to omit the -fpie? Without pie, and
> with no libraries linked in that are pie, there should BE no .got, AFIK. I
> wonder if absolutely everything is getting re-built, like maybe there is a
> library routine that is being linked in? What exactly was missing when you
> compiled and linked without pie?
I just tried with:
PLATFORM_RELFLAGS += -fvisibility=hidden
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm
PLATFORM_LDFLAGS += -Bsymbolic --emit-relocs
There is relocation information in the linker output, however it is not
marked for allocation so it gets stripped out when creating u-boot.bin
>
> Best Regards,
> Bill Campbell
>>
>> It
>> seems as though I need .rel.got, .got.plt, .dynsym and .rel.dyn in order
>> to find the actual bytes that need modifying (it also seems to mess with
>> the size of the stripped binary for some reason)
>>
>> Looks like I'll have to proceed with my original plan - a bit bloated,
>> but it works
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list