[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090512143339.GA6304@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:33:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: optimize to 17%
performance increase
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
ok. Maybe newer gcc does better with size=y. optimize-inline=n is
not a surprise - this is in essence a micro-benchmark where inlining
helps - and gcc's inliner isnt too fantastic either.
Ingo
--
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