Adrian Bunk wrote: { On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:22:59AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > Dr. Horst H. von Brand wrote: { > Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adrian Bunk wrote: { > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote: > > > i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the > > > kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it to the > > > top level Makefile does it change to all the Makefiles? > > And since it's larger, it's also slower. > > } > > > It's faster but it's flawed. Root-NFS boot failed! > > How do you know that it is faster if it is busted? > } > > The -O3 compile produces a faster kernel, which seems to work perfectly, > albeit the Root-NFS boot flaw!
How did you measure that you that your -O3 kernel isn't slower? } Gettimeofday loops using gcc-3.2.2 on 2.4.31 and 2.6.12. Also, 2.4 is faster than 2.6! Try this: #define __USE_GNU #include <stdio.h> #include <sys/time.h> unsigned long elapsed(int start) { static struct timeval s,e; if (start) return gettimeofday(&s, NULL); gettimeofday(&e, NULL); return ((e.tv_sec - s.tv_sec) * 1000 + (e.tv_usec - s.tv_usec) / 1000); } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i; elapsed(1); for (i = 0; elapsed(0) < 100; i++) { int ret = i; if (ret > i) break; else if (ret < 0) { perror("not here"); break; } ret++; } printf("Elapsed: %lu in %lums %lu/ms",i,elapsed(0),i/elapsed(0)); int tmo=i; elapsed(1); for (i = 0; i < 100*tmo ; i++) { int ret = i; if (ret > i) break; else if (ret < 0) { perror("not here"); break; } ret++; } printf(" - %lu/ms",i/elapsed(0)); elapsed(1); for (i = 0; i < 100*tmo ; i++); printf(" - %lu/ms\n",i/elapsed(0)); return 0; } -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/