linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: optimize to 17% performance increase

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905121022560.13234@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 10:25:05 -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, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > 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:

Here's the results:

size=n inline=n  270 
size=n inline=y  290
size=y inline=n  315
size=y inline=y  372 (ouch!)

Thus it seems to keep both optimizations off is best for performance.

-- 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/