Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:58:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:58:01 -0500 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:5780 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:58:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:40:07 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: Denis Vlasenko Cc: Andreas Schwab , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Message-ID: <20030205131007.GA1639@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com References: <200302042011.h14KBuG6002791@darkstar.example.net> <200302050717.h157HTs16569@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <200302051143.h15BhGs18013@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302051143.h15BhGs18013@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 916 Lines: 22 On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:41:34PM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > My argument was against overusing optimization techniques. > You cannot speed up kernel by aligning *everything* to 32 bytes, > or by unrolling all loops, or by aggressive inlining. > That's too easy to work. You get kernel which is bigger > *and* slower. I am not getting into this debate, just wanted to point out that effect of compiler optimization on UNIX kernels have been studied before. One paper I recall is - http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sf94/full_papers/partridge.ps They used prfile-guided optimization, so that is whole another angle altogether. Thanks Dipankar - 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/