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

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

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
> But if someone with a small cache would actually *measure* the damned 
> thing, I'd be more impressed ... I've never seen that, but perhaps
> I just missed it. 
> 
> Point is the same either way though ... we shouldn't unconditionally
> optimise for *anyone's* system. If it's faster on all systems that anyone
> can be bothered to measure, great. If it's faster on some, and slower on
> others, a config option seems more appropriate, defaulting to the majority
> of users.
> 

   The thing is, that in fact kernel optimization is not that important.

   The goal of kernel is to provide framework for applications to the 
job well. I wasn't doing any kernels measurements - since kernel docs 
are saying that -O2 is the standard. And it is really hard to measure 
kernel only perfomance. (And it is rather pointless - I'm not going to 
sell linux kernel ;-)))

   But indeed I was testing my application on embedded system with 16K 
L1 cache. Results were pretty predictable: gcc 2.95.3 + -Os was giving 
some (around 2-3%) performance improvements, while 2.95.3 + -O[23] and 
3.2.3 with any optimization were giving aprox. the same times. (App is 
bloated with third-party libraries, C++ and threads. Save God I have 
killed all exceptions - they were really really really slow on target 
system.)

   But on other side - since embedded systems are not that overclocked 
as high-end toys - cache miss is not that painful. As of docs, NatSemi 
Geode@266MHz cache miss costs exactly 266/66 == 4 cycles.

-- 
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