mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: optimize to 17% performance increase
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:33:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090512143339.GA6304@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905121022560.13234@gandalf.stny.rr.com>


* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 12 May 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > It's also interesting to see that text size went down when speed 
> > > went up. I'm wondering how these compiler options:
> > 
> > But that was not always the case. The biggest boost in performance of the 
> > series (the last patch) also increased the size.
> > 
> > > 
> > >   CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
> > >   CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y
> > 
> > Note, my test runs had both the above configure options disabled.
> > I'll run it again and see how they affect the results:
> 
> Here's the results:
> 
> size=n inline=n  270 
> size=n inline=y  290
> size=y inline=n  315
> size=y inline=y  372 (ouch!)
> 
> Thus it seems to keep both optimizations off is best for performance.

ok. Maybe newer gcc does better with size=y. optimize-inline=n is 
not a surprise - this is in essence a micro-benchmark where inlining 
helps - and gcc's inliner isnt too fantastic either.

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-05-12 14:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-12  4:08 Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12  4:08 ` [PATCH 1/5] ring-buffer: remove type parameter from rb_reserve_next_event Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12  4:08 ` [PATCH 2/5] ring-buffer: move calculation of event length Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12  4:08 ` [PATCH 3/5] ring-buffer: small optimizations Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12  4:08 ` [PATCH 4/5] ring-buffer: use internal time stamp function Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12  4:08 ` [PATCH 5/5] ring-buffer: move code around to remove some branches Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12  8:33 ` [PATCH 0/5] [GIT PULL] ring-buffer: optimize to 17% performance increase Ingo Molnar
2009-05-12 13:27   ` Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12 14:25     ` Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12 14:28       ` Steven Rostedt
2009-05-12 14:33       ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-05-13 13:44       ` Steven Rostedt

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=20090512143339.GA6304@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /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®