From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: How to handle function tracing, frame pointers and -mfentry?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:43:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1335555817.28106.232.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1335552399.28106.228.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-27 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-27 18:46 Steven Rostedt
2012-04-27 19:43 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2012-04-27 20:27 ` Sam Ravnborg
2012-04-27 20:31 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-27 20:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-04-27 21:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-27 21:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-04-28 8:36 ` Andi Kleen
2012-04-28 8:50 ` Sam Ravnborg
2012-04-28 9:11 ` Sam Ravnborg
2012-04-28 12:16 ` Andi Kleen
2012-04-28 16:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
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=1335555817.28106.232.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
/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®