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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20091205070249.GA23330@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 5 Dec 2009 08:02:49 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What is the performance when using frame pointers in the kernel?


* Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com> wrote:

> 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.

I dont buy the 10% without seeing precise measurement results. 1-2% 
maybe, in some cases.

	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/