All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
To: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:40:07 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030205131007.GA1639@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200302051143.h15BhGs18013@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:41:34PM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> My argument was against overusing optimization techniques.
> You cannot speed up kernel by aligning *everything* to 32 bytes,
> or by unrolling all loops, or by aggressive inlining.
> That's too easy to work. You get kernel which is bigger
> *and* slower.

I am not getting into this debate, just wanted to point out that
effect of compiler optimization on UNIX kernels have been studied
before. One paper I recall is  -

http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sf94/full_papers/partridge.ps

They used prfile-guided optimization, so that is whole another angle altogether.

Thanks
Dipankar

  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-02-05 12:58 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                     ` Dipankar Sarma [this message]
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 ` gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 15:51   ` [Lse-tech] " 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=20030205131007.GA1639@in.ibm.com \
    --to=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=schwab@suse.de \
    --cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.