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
next prev 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®