[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905120923250.13234@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: optimize to 17% performance
increase
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Before the patch series:
> >
> > benchmark: 307 ns (220 ns)
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 16554 24 12 16590 40ce kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> >
> >
> > commit 1cd8d7358948909ab80b254eb14bcebc555ad417
> > ring-buffer: remove type parameter from rb_reserve_next_event
> >
> > benchmark: 302 ns (215 ns)
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 16538 24 12 16574 40be kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> >
> > commit be957c447f7233a67904a1b11eb3ab61e702bf4d
> > ring-buffer: move calculation of event length
> >
> > benchmark: 293 ns (206 ns)
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 16490 24 12 16526 408e kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> >
> > commit 0f0c85fc80adbbd2265d89867d743f929d516805
> > ring-buffer: small optimizations
> >
> > benchmark: 285 ns (198 ns)
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 16474 24 12 16510 407e kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> >
> > commit 88eb0125362f2ab272cbaf84252cf101ddc2dec9
> > ring-buffer: use internal time stamp function
> >
> > benchmark: 282 ns (195 ns)
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 16474 24 12 16510 407e kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> >
> >
> > commit 168b6b1d0594c7866caa73b12f3b8d91075695f2
> > ring-buffer: move code around to remove some branches
> >
> > benchmark: 270 ns (183 ns)
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 16490 24 12 16526 408e kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
> >
> > Thus we went from an average of 220 ns per recording, to 183 ns.
> > Which is about a 17% performance gain.
>
> Nice!
>
> It's also interesting to see that text size went down when speed
> went up. I'm wondering how these compiler options:
But that was not always the case. The biggest boost in performance of the
series (the last patch) also increased the size.
>
> CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
> CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y
Note, my test runs had both the above configure options disabled.
I'll run it again and see how they affect the results:
-- Steve
--
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