linux-kernel - Re: What is the performance when using frame pointers in the kernel?

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.2.00.0912041024500.16957@p34.internal.lan>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:25:06 -0500 (EST)
From:	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What is the performance when using frame pointers in the
 kernel?

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Jiri Kosina wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> What is the performance hit when the kernel is compiled with frame
>>> pointers?
>>
>> build both kernels and run your favourite workload to find out.
>
> But generally speaking, frame pointers impose quite some performance
> penalty indeed. lmbench syscall microbenchmark can give you some hint. I
> expect you'll see approx. 10% performance increase for various syscalls if
> you disable them, as that's what we have measured lately.
>
> -- 
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
>

Thanks for the response.. Good to know.

Justin.
--
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/