From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: BUGed to death
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:19:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <80690000.1050351598@flay> (raw)
Seems all these bug checks are fairly expensive. I can get 1%
back on system time for kernel compiles by changing BUG to
"do {} while (0)" to make them all compile away. Profiles aren't
very revealing though ... seems to be within experimental error ;-(
I was pondering CONFIG_RUN_WILD_NAKED_AND_FREE, but maybe we can
just nail a few of the hottest path ones instead (I think you did
a couple already recently). I guess that suggestion isn't much
use without more profile data though ;-)
M.
Kernbench: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.67-mjb2 43.34 76.24 563.55 1476.25
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 43.43 75.29 564.12 1471.75
Kernbench: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 16 x num_cpus)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.67-mjb2 43.91 85.05 570.61 1493.50
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 44.12 84.80 571.10 1485.00
Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.67-mjb2 44.01 85.12 570.10 1488.25
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 44.03 83.93 570.37 1485.25
DISCLAIMER: SPEC(tm) and the benchmark name SDET(tm) are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This
benchmarking was performed for research purposes only, and the run results
are non-compliant and not-comparable with any published results.
Results are shown as percentages of the first set displayed
SDET 1 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 1.9%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 104.1% 0.0%
SDET 2 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 1.9%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 106.4% 0.0%
SDET 4 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 3.8%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 97.1% 1.3%
SDET 8 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 0.9%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 100.7% 0.7%
SDET 16 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 1.3%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 102.8% 0.7%
SDET 32 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 0.5%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 100.8% 0.5%
SDET 64 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 0.4%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 100.6% 0.3%
SDET 128 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.67-mjb2 100.0% 0.1%
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 100.9% 0.2%
RMAPBENCH
rmapbench: 100x100-linear
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.67-mjb2 44.24 470.00 211.26 1527.67
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 51.20 579.11 218.33 1533.33
rmapbench: 100x100-random
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.67-mjb2 2.99 26.50 0.44 895.67
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 3.03 28.02 0.33 892.00
rmapbench: 1x10000-linear
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.67-mjb2 2.53 1.32 0.19 59.67
2.5.67-mjb2-nobug 2.37 1.17 0.19 57.00
next reply other threads:[~2003-04-14 20:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-14 20:19 Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2003-04-14 20:40 ` BUGed to death Duncan Sands
2003-04-14 21:02 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-14 21:10 ` Duncan Sands
2003-04-14 21:17 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-15 11:57 ` Duncan Sands
2003-04-15 12:05 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-15 14:39 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-23 15:08 ` Duncan Sands
2003-04-14 21:00 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-14 20:55 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-14 21:08 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-14 21:50 ` Andrew Morton
2003-04-14 21:55 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-15 0:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-15 12:01 ` Duncan Sands
2003-04-15 12:31 ` Jens Axboe
2003-04-15 12:36 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-15 12:40 ` Jens Axboe
2003-04-15 12:49 ` Sean Neakums
2003-04-15 12:52 ` Sean Neakums
2003-04-15 13:01 ` Roman Zippel
2003-04-15 13:17 ` Jens Axboe
2003-04-15 13:55 ` Duncan Sands
2003-04-15 14:22 ` Jens Axboe
2003-04-15 14:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-15 14:39 ` Duncan Sands
2003-04-15 14:45 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-04-15 14:58 ` Duncan Sands
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-04-15 14:30 rwhron
2003-04-15 15:57 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-15 16:11 ` Nick Piggin
2003-04-15 16:42 ` Michael Buesch
2003-04-15 16:45 ` Dave Jones
2003-04-15 18:33 Chuck Ebbert
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=80690000.1050351598@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox