[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACmZjJLLiML0wgojfxDujqusiYGvp=u1fPs7wMmXDaDcm55nOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:56:16 +0800
From: Pengfei Yuan <0xcoolypf@...il.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why not build kernel with -O3
I am trying legacy GCC versions.
But I am not able to try different architectures.
2015-04-07 14:43 GMT+08:00 Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:37 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have conducted some experiments to compare kernels built with -O2
>> and -O3. Here are the results:
>>
>> Application Performance O2 Performance O3 Improvement
>> Apache 127814.14 req/s 130321.24 req/s 1.96%
>> Nginx 537589.08 req/s 556723.32 req/s 3.56%
>> MySQL 70661.38 tx/s 71008.47 tx/s 0.49%
>> PostgreSQL 79763.39 tx/s 79535.59 tx/s -0.29%
>> Redis 352547.47 op/s 405417.24 op/s 15.0%
>> Memcached 844439.14 op/s 845321.79 op/s 0.10%
>>
>> Geomean: +3.34%
>>
>> Experiment environment: Linux 3.19.3, GCC 4.9.3 prerelease, Core-i7
>> 4770, 32G RAM, 10GbE
>>
>> LMbench microbenchmark also shows reduction in various latencies, as
>> well as increase of throughputs.
>
> Please show multiple run data for all permutations of supported gcc
> version/arch ;-)
>
> -Mike
--
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