| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130124141733.GA14876@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:17:33 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: ling.ma.program@...il.com Cc: mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ma Ling <ling.ml@...pay.com> Subject: Re: [Suggestion] [x86]: Compiler Option Os is better on latest x86 * ling.ma.program@...il.com <ling.ma.program@...il.com> wrote: > From: Ma Ling <ling.ml@...pay.com> > > Currently we use O2 as compiler option for better performance, > although it will enlarge code size, in modern CPUs larger instructon > and unified cache, sophisticated instruction prefetch weaken instruction > cache miss, meanwhile flags such as -falign-functions, -falign-jumps, > -falign-loops, -falign-labels are very helpful to improve CPU front-end > throughput because CPU fetch instruction by 16 aligned–bytes code block > per cycle. > > In order to save power and get higher performance, Sandy Bridge > starts to introduce decoded-cache, instructions will be kept in it > after decode stage. When CPU refetches the instruction, decoded cache could > provide 32 aligned-bytes instruction block, instead of 16 bytes from I-cache, > fewer branch miss penalty resulted from shorter pipeline. It requires hot > code should be put into decoded cache as possible we can. Sandy Bridge, > Ivy Bridge, and Haswell all implemented this feature, Os-Optimize for size > should be better than O2 on them. > > Based on above reasons, we compiled linux kernel 3.6.9 with O2 and Os > respectively. The results show Os improve performance netperf 4.8%, > 2.7% for volano as below > > O2 + netperf > Performance counter stats for 'netperf' (3 runs): > > 5416.157986 task-clock # 0.541 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.19% ) > 348,249 context-switches # 0.064 M/sec ( +- 0.17% ) > 0 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.00% ) > 353 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.16% ) > 13,166,254,384 cycles # 2.431 GHz ( +- 0.18% ) > 8,827,499,807 stalled-cycles-frontend # 67.05% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.29% ) > 5,951,234,060 stalled-cycles-backend # 45.20% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.44% ) > 8,122,481,914 instructions # 0.62 insns per cycle > # 1.09 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.17% ) > 1,415,864,138 branches # 261.415 M/sec ( +- 0.17% ) > 16,975,308 branch-misses # 1.20% of all branches ( +- 0.61% ) > > 10.007215371 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.03% ) > > Os + netperf > > Performance counter stats for 'netperf' (3 runs): > > 5395.386704 task-clock # 0.539 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.14% ) > 345,880 context-switches # 0.064 M/sec ( +- 0.25% ) > 0 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.00% ) > 354 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.00% ) > 13,142,706,297 cycles # 2.436 GHz ( +- 0.23% ) > 8,379,382,641 stalled-cycles-frontend # 63.76% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.50% ) > 5,513,722,219 stalled-cycles-backend # 41.95% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.71% ) > 8,554,202,795 instructions # 0.65 insns per cycle > # 0.98 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.25% ) > 1,530,020,505 branches # 283.579 M/sec ( +- 0.25% ) > 17,710,406 branch-misses # 1.16% of all branches ( +- 1.00% ) > > 10.004859867 seconds time elapsed > > During the same time (10.004859867 seconds) IPC from Os is 0.65, O2 is 0.62, Os improved performance 4.8% > > O2 + volano > Performance counter stats for './loopclient.sh openjdk' (3 runs): > > 210627.115313 task-clock # 0.781 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.92% ) > 13,812,610 context-switches # 0.066 M/sec ( +- 0.17% ) > 2,352,755 CPU-migrations # 0.011 M/sec ( +- 0.84% ) > 208,333 page-faults # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 1.58% ) > 525,627,073,405 cycles # 2.496 GHz ( +- 0.96% ) > 428,177,571,365 stalled-cycles-frontend # 81.46% frontend cycles idle ( +- 1.09% ) > 370,885,224,739 stalled-cycles-backend # 70.56% backend cycles idle ( +- 1.18% ) > 187,662,577,544 instructions # 0.36 insns per cycle > # 2.28 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.31% ) > 35,684,976,425 branches # 169.423 M/sec ( +- 0.45% ) > 1,062,086,942 branch-misses # 2.98% of all branches ( +- 0.08% ) > > 269.764578435 seconds time elapsed > > Os + volano > Performance counter stats for './loopclient.sh openjdk' (3 runs): > > 209545.786941 task-clock # 0.778 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.66% ) > 13,864,142 context-switches # 0.066 M/sec ( +- 0.29% ) > 2,326,826 CPU-migrations # 0.011 M/sec ( +- 0.83% ) > 205,575 page-faults # 0.001 M/sec ( +- 2.63% ) > 523,366,588,452 cycles # 2.498 GHz ( +- 0.75% ) > 419,200,472,430 stalled-cycles-frontend # 80.10% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.86% ) > 362,044,374,737 stalled-cycles-backend # 69.18% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.96% ) > 193,274,857,837 instructions # 0.37 insns per cycle > # 2.17 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.51% ) > 37,657,832,686 branches # 179.712 M/sec ( +- 0.42% ) > 1,061,005,300 branch-misses # 2.82% of all branches ( +- 0.86% ) > > 269.410275674 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.06% ) > > During the same time (269.410275674 seconds) IPC from Os is 0.37, O2 is 0.36, Os improved performance 2.7% > > So our initial conclusion is Os is better than O2 for current > & coming x86 CPUs. If I was wrong, please correct me. Did you patch the kernel, or used CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE? (there was no patch in your mail.) Thanks, 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists