Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:01:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:01:40 -0500 Received: from hermine.idb.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:42257 "HELO hermine.idb.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:01:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3E3FBC1C.167E779A@aitel.hist.no> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:11:56 +0100 From: Helge Hafting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.59 i686) X-Accept-Language: no, en, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Padraig@Linux.ie CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance References: <3E3F9C82.7000607@Linux.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1934 Lines: 56 Padraig@Linux.ie wrote: [...] > Interesting. I just noticed that I get 50% decrease in > the speed of my program if I just insert a printf(). I.E. > my program is like: > > printf() > for(;;) { > do_sorting_loop_test(); > } > > If I remove the initial printf it doubles in speed? > I assume this is some weird caching thing? Looks like a cacheline alignment issue to me. This loop of yours occupy x cachelines on your cpu, moving it in memory by adding the printf might cause it to ocupy x+1 cachelines. That might be noticeable if x is a really small number, such as 1. > gcc is 3.2.1 (same happens for 2.95..) > > > Note this is with -O3. If I don't specify -O then > leaving the printf in speeds things up by about 15% > Sure - going from -O3 to -O changes code generation so your loop code hits the cachelines differently. In this case the printf moved the loop into better alignment. My advice is to put your test loop in a function of its own, and do the printing in the function that calls it. functions are always aligned the same (good) way so that calling them will be fast. You can tune the speed of your inner loop by experimenting with the insertion of one or more NOP asms in front of the loop. Just be aware that all such tuning is wasted once you change anything at all in that function - you'll have to re-do the tuning each time. The compiler should ideally align the loops for maximum performance. That can be hard though, considering all the different processors that might run your program. And aligning everything optimally could waste a _lot_ of code space - so do this only for small loops with lots of iterations. Helge Hafting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/