[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <d66e01c9d04540d058a93d5b70421985@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:03:35 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>, rae l <crquan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: -Os versus -O2
> then do we need a new option 'optimize for best overall performance'
> that goes for size (and the corresponding wins there) most of the
> time, but is ignored where it makes a huge difference?
That's -Os mostly. Some awful CPUs really need higher
loop/label/function alignment though to get any
performance; you could add -falign-xxx options for those.
> in reality this was a flaw in gcc that on modern CPU's with the larger
> difference between CPU speed and memory speed it still preferred to
> unroll loops (eating more memory and blowing out the cpu cache) when
> it shouldn't have.
You told it to unroll loops, so it did. No flaw. If you
feel the optimisations enabled by -O2 should depend on the
CPU tuning selected, please file a PR.
Also note that whether or not it is profitable to unroll
a particular loop depends largely on how "hot" that loop
is, and GCC doesn't know much about that if you don't feed
it profiling information (it can guess a bit, sure, but it
can guess wrong too).
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists