Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:33:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:33:05 -0500 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:41880 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:33:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 07:42:31 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: linux-kernel cc: lse-tech Subject: gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance Message-ID: <224770000.1044546145@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <336780000.1044313506@flay> References: <336780000.1044313506@flay> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4654 Lines: 104 Compiled the kernel with gcc -O2 (default) vs -Os (which people sometimes predict will be faster due to better cache usage). Didn't bother to measure how much time the compile itself took like that, but the resultant kernels were compared. Summary ... -Os is a little slower (note system times on kernbench, SDET and NUMAschedbench I consider within experimental error), but not drastically. I wouldn't switch to it though ;-) All done with gcc-2.95.4 (Debian Woody). These machines (16x NUMA-Q) have 700MHz P3 Xeons with 2Mb L2 cache ... -Os might fare better on celeron with a puny cache if someone wants to try that out. M. sizes: 894822 Feb 5 23:50 /boot/vmlinuz-2.5.59-mjb3-Os 906203 Feb 5 22:46 /boot/vmlinuz-2.5.59-mjb3.old Kernbench-2: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus) Elapsed User System CPU 2.5.59-mjb3 45.66 565.33 110.18 1479.00 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 45.58 565.38 111.42 1484.33 Kernbench-16: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 16 x num_cpus) Elapsed User System CPU 2.5.59-mjb3 46.87 569.77 133.32 1499.67 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 46.86 569.30 134.63 1501.50 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 2.5.59-mjb3 100.0% 4.1% 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 95.1% 6.7% SDET 2 (see disclaimer) Throughput Std. Dev 2.5.59-mjb3 100.0% 8.0% 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 101.2% 5.8% SDET 4 (see disclaimer) Throughput Std. Dev 2.5.59-mjb3 100.0% 6.2% 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 99.4% 14.1% SDET 8 (see disclaimer) Throughput Std. Dev 2.5.59-mjb3 100.0% 3.3% 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 100.5% 2.2% SDET 16 (see disclaimer) Throughput Std. Dev 2.5.59-mjb3 100.0% 3.2% 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 98.9% 2.4% SDET 32 (see disclaimer) Throughput Std. Dev 2.5.59-mjb3 100.0% 2.2% 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 97.2% 1.6% SDET 64 (see disclaimer) Throughput Std. Dev 2.5.59-mjb3 100.0% 0.4% 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 99.9% 0.3% SDET 128 (see disclaimer) Throughput Std. Dev NUMA schedbench 4: AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys 2.5.59-mjb3 0.00 34.62 90.63 0.91 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 0.00 40.35 81.94 0.69 NUMA schedbench 8: AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys 2.5.59-mjb3 0.00 52.16 266.45 1.51 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 0.00 46.61 248.47 1.49 NUMA schedbench 16: AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys 2.5.59-mjb3 0.00 57.38 845.30 3.58 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 0.00 58.34 851.12 2.94 NUMA schedbench 32: AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys 2.5.59-mjb3 0.00 118.05 1806.79 6.24 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 0.00 115.85 1803.72 6.29 NUMA schedbench 64: AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys 2.5.59-mjb3 0.00 236.59 3627.47 15.24 2.5.59-mjb3-Os 0.00 236.90 3631.11 15.35 - 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/