Re: [2.6 patch] add a config option for -Os compilation

["Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <filia@softhome.net>]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> If you have a puny 128K L2 cache, it might help,

   [ I accept this as a flame-bait. ]
   Can you be little bit less ignorant? Eh?
   Please. I beg you.
   Linux is used not only by you, and not only on huge NUMA boxes with 
huge caches <flame-bait>to hide stupid design flaws</flame-bait>. (can't 
wait when clusters of hand-helds connected over bluetooth will wipe out 
mainframe market :)))

   My system has 16K L1 cache. Only L1. And what should I do?
   I was benchmarking 2.4.1[68] some time ago and -Os helps gcc to 
produce faster code (both gcc 2.95.3 and 3.2.3). (It was Geode. But e.g. 
Motorolla's PowerQuicc has 16K L1 too - but I'm not sure does -Os help 
on ppc)

   On my test difference was around 5-7%. Task was very IO intensive 
with few of computational branches. Size of .text ~ 800K, .bss ~ 400K.

> Please don't - I benchmarked it a while ago, and it's definitely slower.
> If you have a puny 128K L2 cache, it might help, but it definitely needs
> to be optional.

   Optional - would be Okay.

P.S. That's dependency on GCC what should be optional. Let's not forget 
the source of the problem.

-- 
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau  / with best regards from Saarbruecken.
--
   "... and for $64000 question, could you get yourself vaguely
      familiar with the notion of on-topic posting?"
				-- Al Viro @ LKML