All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Patch 0/4] Reordering of functions, try 2
@ 2006-02-27 15:23 Arjan van de Ven
  2006-02-27 15:27 ` [Patch 2/4] Basic reorder infrastructure Arjan van de Ven
                   ` (4 more replies)
  0 siblings, 5 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2006-02-27 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel, torvalds; +Cc: akpm, ak

Hi,


This is the second posting of the function reorder patches.
I've run a series of lmbench (3.0) runs on the patches earlier today on
this set, with the following results (I'll discuss 2 runs, one with the
first 3 patches, and one with all patches)


These are descriptions of the results, since the full lmbench run is a
LOT of numbers; this is the summary of it

1) There is a whole class of tests where it just doesn't matter at all.
In this class are the cpu measurements of FPU ops/second but also the
RAM bandwidth tests and the like. This is fully understandable; these
tests go straight from userspace->hardware, kernel changes don't impact
these.

2) In the "processor/processes" group, 7 tests changed behavior, and the
average of these changes was a performance increase by 10% (!!). The
exception was the signal handling test, which decreased by 6%. This
actually made me feel good, since the original function list was based
on a profile run that didn't do signals much if at all.

The second run (with all 4 patches) showed some fluctuations here but on
average it was in the noise region. Exception to this was the stat test,
which lost half the gain from the first 3 patches. Here also the signals
test lost

3) In the latency group, the 3-patches run is again in the 10% gain
range. Here the 4-patches run shows an additional gain for several of
the tests in the 5% range and for example the af_unix test showed a loss
compared to the 3-patches run




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Patch 4/4] Tell GCC 4.1 to move unlikely() code to a separate section
@ 2006-02-28  6:34 Chuck Ebbert
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Ebbert @ 2006-02-28  6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: Arjan van de Ven, linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Linus Torvalds

In-Reply-To: <200602271639.34776.ak@suse.de>

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:39:34, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 16:31, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > This patch is more controversial I assume; it offers the option 
> > to use the gcc 4.1 option to move unlikely() code to a separate section.
> > On the con side, this means that longer byte sequences are needed to jump
> > to this code, on the Pro side it means that the unlikely() code isn't sharing
> > icache cachelines and tlbs anymore.
> 
> I don't think this will do anything because the default Makefile
> still has
> 
> CFLAGS += -fno-reorder-blocks 

This also won't work for functions that specify an explicit section name,
e.g. __sched, __kprobes etc. -- at least that's what the gcc 4.0.2 docs say.

-- 
Chuck
"Equations are the Devil's sentences."  --Stephen Colbert


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-10 17:13 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-02-27 15:23 [Patch 0/4] Reordering of functions, try 2 Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-27 15:27 ` [Patch 2/4] Basic reorder infrastructure Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-27 15:41   ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-27 16:31   ` sam
2006-02-27 17:19     ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-28 19:08       ` Sam Ravnborg
2006-03-10  9:45       ` [Patch 2/4] Basic reorder infrastructure - makes linking very slow Andi Kleen
2006-02-27 15:31 ` [Patch 4/4] Tell GCC 4.1 to move unlikely() code to a separate section Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-27 15:39   ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-27 23:33     ` Bill Davidsen
2006-02-27 15:31 ` [Patch 3/4] Move the base kernel to 2Mb to align with TLB boundaries Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-27 15:36   ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-27 15:52     ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-27 15:31 ` [Patch 1/4] avoid entry.S functions from reordering Arjan van de Ven
2006-02-27 15:36 ` [Patch 0/4] Reordering of functions, try 2 Andi Kleen
2006-02-27 15:43   ` Arjan van de Ven
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-02-28  6:34 [Patch 4/4] Tell GCC 4.1 to move unlikely() code to a separate section Chuck Ebbert

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.