[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335555817.28106.232.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:43:37 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: How to handle function tracing, frame pointers and
-mfentry?
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 14:46 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Currently, function tracing selects CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for various
> archs (including x86), as the kernel will not compile without it, if
> function tracing is enabled. But if -mfentry is available with the
> compiler, it does not have this dependency. The kernel will compile fine
> with -pg -mfentry and without frame pointers.
Just to show the difference. I ran several iterations of hackbench, on
an Intel Quad Core2 2.6GHz.
Here's the fentry code with frame pointers (tracing disabled):
Time: 2.006
Time: 2.028
Time: 2.028
Time: 1.999
Time: 2.035
Time: 2.037
Time: 2.006
Time: 1.996
Time: 2.049
Time: 1.991
Time: 2.038
Time: 2.047
Time: 2.039
Time: 2.000
Time: 2.021
Time: 2.011
Time: 2.007
Time: 2.024
Time: 2.033
Time: 2.027
Time: 2.044
And the fentry code with frame pointers disabled:
Time: 1.870
Time: 1.861
Time: 1.865
Time: 1.884
Time: 1.867
Time: 1.867
Time: 1.875
Time: 1.883
Time: 1.863
Time: 1.877
Time: 1.865
Time: 1.885
Time: 1.842
Time: 1.863
Time: 1.899
Time: 1.877
Time: 1.837
Time: 1.900
Time: 1.897
Time: 1.877
Time: 1.853
Time: 1.856
That's about a 8% difference.
-- Steve
--
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