mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: -O3.... again
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:32:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <40572C09.5080208@techsource.com> (raw)

I know this has been beat to death, but I was wondering about something, 
and google isn't being forthcoming.

I understand that the biggest problem with -O3 is the automatic function 
inlining.  It tends to make things worse, due to cache misses.

Well, the default maximum for automatic inlining for GCC (--param 
max-inline-insns-auto=n) is 300 pseudo instructions, which sounds 
awfully high to me (although I don't know what a pseudo instruction 
quite corresponds to).

Has anyone tinkered with different values for -finline-limit, or 
specifically max-inline-insns-auto to see if they could actually get any 
benefit out of it?

It seems to me that as a function grows beyond a certain size, the value 
of inlining it diminishes rapidly.  Only when the function-call overhead 
is a significant part of the over-all run-time of the rest of the 
function does it really help to inline.  Well, if the kernel isn't 
getting benefit from the defaults for -O3, then perhaps the defaults are 
wrong and need to be tweaked.

Anyone experiment with this?  Any thoughts?


I doubt this would apply well right off to the kernel, but right now, 
I'm doing gentoo emerges of GCC with varying CFLAGS settings.  First, I 
emerge GCC with the experimental values of CFLAGS.  Then I change the 
CFLAGS to a standard setting and time it (the timed run must always have 
the same parameters for the target).  My objective is to determine the 
MINIMUM value of max-inline-insns-auto which yields an improvement over -O2.


             reply	other threads:[~2004-03-16 16:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-16 16:32 Timothy Miller [this message]
2004-03-16 16:38 ` Michael Buesch

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=40572C09.5080208@techsource.com \
    --to=miller@techsource.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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®