On 01/24/2013 09:25 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:56:26AM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> There has been occasional talk about a -Ok(ernel) option to gcc, but
>> that would require someone to go through gcc and figure out what bits
>> makes sense and which don't...
>
> Ye
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:56:26AM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> There has been occasional talk about a -Ok(ernel) option to gcc, but
> that would require someone to go through gcc and figure out what bits
> makes sense and which don't...
Yep, such an option has a great potential for us and, if d
On 01/24/2013 08:46 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure about -Os: 3a55fb0d9fe8e2f4594329edd58c5fd6f35a99dd
>
> And 0.01/0.03 IPC improvement doesn't really look too persuasive IMO.
>
There has been occasional talk about a -Ok(ernel) option to gcc, but
that would require someone to
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 03:17:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So our initial conclusion is Os is better than O2 for current
> > & coming x86 CPUs. If I was wrong, please correct me.
>
> Did you patch the kernel, or used CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE?
>
> (there was no patch in your mail.)
Hmm,
* ling.ma.prog...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ma Ling
>
> Currently we use O2 as compiler option for better performance,
> although it will enlarge code size, in modern CPUs larger instructon
> and unified cache, sophisticated instruction prefetch weaken instruction
> cache miss, meanwhile flag
Hi Ingo,
By netperf we did double check on older Nehalem platform too as below:
O2 NHM
Performance counter stats for 'netperf' (3 runs):
3779.262214 task-clock#0.378 CPUs utilized
( +- 0.37% )
47,580 context-switches #0.013 M/sec
From: Ma Ling
Currently we use O2 as compiler option for better performance,
although it will enlarge code size, in modern CPUs larger instructon
and unified cache, sophisticated instruction prefetch weaken instruction
cache miss, meanwhile flags such as -falign-functions, -falign-jumps,
-falig
7 matches
Mail list logo
