[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B154018.4060605@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:11:04 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: "Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [X86] Compile Option Os versus O2 on latest x86 platform
On 12/01/2009 02:14 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:54:04 +0800
> "Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ingo
>>
>> Thanks for your correction, so we use perf stat --repeat 3 to test
>> volano, tbench, and kbuild, Because netperf has multiple items we may
>> send out later.
>
> a key question is.. how much more memory do you have free due to -Os?
> (because memory is cache is performance on a system level as well)
> and how much less icache pressure is there?
>
>From the re-run, it sounds like the only test that actually shows a
significant difference is volano. From reading the numbers, it looks
like the improvements are almost exclusively in IPC i.e. better
scheduling -- all the other metrics are substantially worse; including a
10% increase in cache misses.
It would be interesting to see what functions are hot in volano. It
might very well be that we could get a boost without significantly bloat
the kernel as a whole by picking out a couple of hot object files and
compiling those with -O2 or -O3.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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