[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100610161339.GA20448@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:13:39 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com,
rth@...hat.com, mhiramat@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, vgoyal@...hat.com,
sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] jump label v9: x86 support
* Jason Baron (jbaron@...hat.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 02:14:40PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:39 -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > > > + select HAVE_ARCH_JUMP_LABEL if !CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> > >
> > > That deserves a comment somewhere, it basically makes OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> > > useless...
> >
> > Hm, we need more than a comment for that - distros enable CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
> > all the time, for the massive kernel image (and hotpath cache footprint)
> > savings. Is this fixable?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
> >
>
> When I tested 'jump label' with CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE, I saw a small
> performance drop , b/c there is less block re-ordering happening.
Is this a performance drop compared to a jump-label-less kernel or
compared to -O2 kernel compiled with jump labels ? Or both ?
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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