From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753077AbZLDPZB (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:25:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751864AbZLDPZA (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:25:00 -0500 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([75.144.35.66]:39372 "EHLO lucidpixels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751681AbZLDPZA (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:25:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:25:06 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Piszcz To: Jiri Kosina cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What is the performance when using frame pointers in the kernel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1259868529.3977.1300.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> What is the performance hit when the kernel is compiled with frame >>> pointers? >> >> build both kernels and run your favourite workload to find out. > > But generally speaking, frame pointers impose quite some performance > penalty indeed. lmbench syscall microbenchmark can give you some hint. I > expect you'll see approx. 10% performance increase for various syscalls if > you disable them, as that's what we have measured lately. > > -- > Jiri Kosina > SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. > Thanks for the response.. Good to know. Justin.