mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Cole <elenstev@mesatop.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: vii@penguinpowered.com, mojomofo@mojomofo.com
Subject: Re: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:02:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <00121116022700.12045@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00121008312900.00872@localhost.localdomain> <006b01c062e2$b4c3ddc0$0500a8c0@methusela>
In-Reply-To: <006b01c062e2$b4c3ddc0$0500a8c0@methusela>

Aaron Tiensivu wrote:
>Rerun the 2.4.0 with kgcc to be fair. :)

John Fremlin wrote:
>Two points: (1) gcc 2.95 makes slightly slower code than egcs-1.1
>(according to benchmarks on gcc.gnu.org) so compile 2.4 kernel with
>egcs for a fairer comparison. (2) The new VM was a performance

Ok, several people have said that kgcc makes a slightly
better (faster) kernel than gcc.  Here are some more results.

 1   2   3   ave.

453 456 455  454.7 make bzImage for 2.4.0t12p7 running 2.4.0t12p7kgcc

compare this to my previous test using test12-pre7 compiled with gcc:

460 458 454  457.3 make bzImage for 2.4.0t12p7 running 2.4.0t12p7gcc

2.4.0t12p7kgcc is shorthand for 2.4.0-test12-pre7k made with kgcc.
2.4.0t12p7gcc is shorthand for 2.4.0-test12-pre7 made with gcc.

kgcc does indeed make a slightly faster (0.5%) kernel, but I think
we're getting into the pregnant or dimpled chad thing at this point.

To create a kgcc test12-pre7, I modified line 18 and 29 of the top
level Makefile to be =kgcc.  Of course, I then restored the Makefile
to original, since I'm not testing how fast gcc vs kgcc compiles a
bunch of code. I modified EXTRAVERSION to be -test12k so I could
double check with uname -r to make sure I booted the correct kernel.

Kgcc made a somewhat larger kernel than gcc. The same .config file
was used for both kernels.

829034 Dec  7 20:46 vmlinuz-2.4.0-test12-pre7
854863 Dec 11 14:12 vmlinuz-2.4.0-test12-pre7k

I have a SMP (dual P-III 733Mhz) machine at work, but it will be 
unavailable for testing for a few more days.  I suspect that 2.4.0-test12
will do better than 2.2.18 with 2 CPUs.  I'll know in a few days.

Building kernels is something we do so frequently and this test is so easy
to reproduce is why I performed it in the first place.  I think it may be as 
good a test of real performance as some of the more formal benchmarks.
Comments anyone?

Steven

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  reply	other threads:[~2000-12-11 23:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2000-12-10 15:31 Steven Cole
2000-12-10 19:52 ` Aaron Tiensivu
2000-12-11 23:02   ` Steven Cole [this message]
2000-12-12  4:40     ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12  5:17       ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12  5:20         ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12 11:01         ` Helge Hafting
2000-12-12 10:27     ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-12 14:15       ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-10 20:36 Steven Cole
2000-12-11 18:16 ` John Fremlin
2000-12-11 18:38   ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 18:46     ` Alan Cox
2000-12-11 19:50       ` Zdenek Kabelac
2000-12-11 20:15       ` Arjan van de Ven
2000-12-11 20:23       ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 22:03       ` Gerhard Mack
2000-12-11 22:06         ` Alan Cox
2000-12-13  9:44           ` Rogier Wolff
2000-12-14 13:08             ` Russell King
2000-12-16  0:40               ` george anzinger
2000-12-12 14:49         ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 18:18       ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 18:40         ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 20:19           ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 20:38             ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 22:09               ` Steven Cole
2000-12-11 22:12     ` Gabor Lenart

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=00121116022700.12045@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=elenstev@mesatop.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mojomofo@mojomofo.com \
    --cc=vii@penguinpowered.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®