mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 07:42:31 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <224770000.1044546145@[10.10.2.4]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <336780000.1044313506@flay>

Compiled the kernel with gcc -O2 (default) vs -Os
(which people sometimes predict will be faster due to better
cache usage). Didn't bother to measure how much time the compile
itself took like that, but the resultant kernels were compared.
Summary ... -Os is a little slower (note system times on kernbench,
SDET and NUMAschedbench I consider within experimental error),
but not drastically. I wouldn't switch to it though ;-)

All done with gcc-2.95.4 (Debian Woody). These machines (16x NUMA-Q) have 
700MHz P3 Xeons with 2Mb L2 cache ... -Os might fare better on celeron 
with a puny cache if someone wants to try that out.

M.

sizes:

894822 Feb  5 23:50 /boot/vmlinuz-2.5.59-mjb3-Os
906203 Feb  5 22:46 /boot/vmlinuz-2.5.59-mjb3.old

Kernbench-2: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
                                   Elapsed        User      System         CPU
                   2.5.59-mjb3       45.66      565.33      110.18     1479.00
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os       45.58      565.38      111.42     1484.33

Kernbench-16: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 16 x num_cpus)
                                   Elapsed        User      System         CPU
                   2.5.59-mjb3       46.87      569.77      133.32     1499.67
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os       46.86      569.30      134.63     1501.50

DISCLAIMER: SPEC(tm) and the benchmark name SDET(tm) are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This 
benchmarking was performed for research purposes only, and the run results
are non-compliant and not-comparable with any published results.

Results are shown as percentages of the first set displayed

SDET 1  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev
                   2.5.59-mjb3       100.0%         4.1%
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        95.1%         6.7%

SDET 2  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev
                   2.5.59-mjb3       100.0%         8.0%
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os       101.2%         5.8%

SDET 4  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev
                   2.5.59-mjb3       100.0%         6.2%
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        99.4%        14.1%

SDET 8  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev
                   2.5.59-mjb3       100.0%         3.3%
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os       100.5%         2.2%

SDET 16  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev
                   2.5.59-mjb3       100.0%         3.2%
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        98.9%         2.4%

SDET 32  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev
                   2.5.59-mjb3       100.0%         2.2%
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        97.2%         1.6%

SDET 64  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev
                   2.5.59-mjb3       100.0%         0.4%
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        99.9%         0.3%

SDET 128  (see disclaimer)
                                Throughput    Std. Dev

NUMA schedbench 4:
                                   AvgUser     Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys
                   2.5.59-mjb3        0.00       34.62       90.63        0.91
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        0.00       40.35       81.94        0.69

NUMA schedbench 8:
                                   AvgUser     Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys
                   2.5.59-mjb3        0.00       52.16      266.45        1.51
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        0.00       46.61      248.47        1.49

NUMA schedbench 16:
                                   AvgUser     Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys
                   2.5.59-mjb3        0.00       57.38      845.30        3.58
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        0.00       58.34      851.12        2.94

NUMA schedbench 32:
                                   AvgUser     Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys
                   2.5.59-mjb3        0.00      118.05     1806.79        6.24
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        0.00      115.85     1803.72        6.29

NUMA schedbench 64:
                                   AvgUser     Elapsed   TotalUser    TotalSys
                   2.5.59-mjb3        0.00      236.59     3627.47       15.24
                2.5.59-mjb3-Os        0.00      236.90     3631.11       15.35


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-02-06 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-03 23:05 gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-03 23:22 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2003-02-03 23:31 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04  0:43   ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 13:42     ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04 14:20       ` John Bradford
2003-02-04  6:54   ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-04  7:13     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 12:25       ` Adrian Bunk
2003-02-04 15:51         ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 16:27           ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 17:40             ` Patrick Mansfield
2003-02-04 17:55               ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04  9:54     ` Bryan Andersen
2003-02-04 15:46       ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 19:09     ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 19:35       ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 19:44         ` Dave Jones
2003-02-04 20:11           ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:20             ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:45             ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 21:44               ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-05  7:15               ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 10:36                 ` Andreas Schwab
2003-02-05 11:41                   ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 12:20                     ` Dave Jones
2003-02-05 13:10                     ` [Lse-tech] " Dipankar Sarma
2003-02-05 15:30                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 21:38         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 21:54           ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 22:11             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 23:27               ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 23:21           ` Larry McVoy
2003-02-04 23:42             ` b_adlakha
2003-02-05  0:19               ` Andy Pfiffer
2003-02-04 23:51             ` Jakob Oestergaard
2003-02-05  1:03               ` Hugo Mills
2003-02-10 22:26               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-10 23:28                 ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 23:51             ` Eli Carter
2003-02-05  0:27               ` Larry McVoy
2003-02-06 20:42                 ` Paul Jakma
2003-02-05  3:03             ` Tomas Szepe
2003-02-05  6:03             ` Mark Mielke
2003-02-07 16:09           ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-04 10:57   ` Padraig
2003-02-04 13:11     ` Helge Hafting
2003-02-04 13:29       ` Jörn Engel
2003-02-04 14:05       ` P
2003-02-04 20:36         ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 12:20 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Jones
2003-02-04 15:50   ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-10 12:13     ` Momchil Velikov
2003-02-06 15:42 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2003-02-06 15:51   ` [Lse-tech] gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance Andi Kleen
2003-02-06 17:48   ` Alan Cox
2003-02-06 17:06     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 20:38     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 21:32       ` John Bradford
2003-02-06 22:12       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 22:58         ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:16           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 23:59             ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:17       ` Roger Larsson
2003-02-06 23:33         ` Martin J. Bligh

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='224770000.1044546145@[10.10.2.4]' \
    --to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /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®