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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <874oo391lk.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:31:03 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What is the performance when using frame pointers in the kernel?

Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> writes:

> 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.

It'll depend on the CPU. On many common cores frame pointer cause
a a few cycles stall on each function entry, but not on all.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/