* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > If that situation has changed - if GCC has regressed in this area then a commit
> > changing the default IMHO gains a lot of credibility if it is backed by careful
> > measurements using perf stat --repeat or similar tools.
>
> Also, please don't back up any numbers for the "-O2 is faster than
> -Os" case with some benchmark that is hot in the caches.
>
> The thing is, many optimizations that make the code larger look really
> good if there are no cache misses, and the code is run a million times
> in a tight loop.
>
> But kernel code in particular tends to not be like that. [...]
To throw some numbers into the discussion, here's the size versus speed
comparison for 'hackbench 15' - which is more on the microbenchmark side of the
equation - but has macrobenchmark properties as well, because it runs 3000
tasks and moves a lot of data, hence thrashes the caches constantly:
CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
----------------------------------------
6,757,858,145 cycles # 2525.983 M/sec ( +- 0.388% )
2,949,907,036 instructions # 0.437 IPC ( +- 0.191% )
595,955,367 branches # 222.759 M/sec ( +- 0.238% )
31,504,981 branch-misses # 5.286 % ( +- 0.187% )
0.164320722 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.524% )
# CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE is not set
----------------------------------------
6,061,867,073 cycles # 2510.283 M/sec ( +- 0.494% )
2,510,505,732 instructions # 0.414 IPC ( +- 0.243% )
493,721,089 branches # 204.455 M/sec ( +- 0.302% )
38,731,708 branch-misses # 7.845 % ( +- 0.206% )
0.148203574 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.673% )
They were perf stat --repeat 100 runs - repeated a couple of times to make sure
it's all real. I have used GCC 4.6.0, a relatively recent compiler. (64-bit
x86, typical .config, etc.)
The text size differences:
text data bss dec filename
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
8809558 1790428 2719744 13319730 vmlinux.optimize_for_size
10268082 1825292 2727936 14821310 vmlinux.optimize_for_speed
So by enabling CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y, we get this total effect:
-16.5% text size reduction
+17.5% instruction count increase
+20.7% branches executed increase
-22.9% branch-miss reduction
+11.5% cycle count increase
+10.8% total runtime increase
A few observations:
- the branch-miss reduction suggests that almost none of the new branches
introduced by -Os generates a branch miss.
- the cycles count increase is in line with the total runtime increase.
- workloads where 16.5% more instruction cache footprint slows down the
workload by more than ~11% would win from enabling
CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y.
Looking at these numbers i became more pessimistic about the usefulness of the
current implementation of CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y - it would need some
*serious* icache thrashing to cause a larger than 11% slowdown, right?
I'm not sure what the best way would be to measure a realistic macro workloads
where the kernel's instructions generate a lot of instruction-cache misses.
Most of the 'real' workloads tend to be hard to measure precisely, tend to be
very noisy and take a long time to run.
I could perhaps try to simulate them: i could patch a debug-only 'icache
flusher' function into every system call, and compare the perf stat results -
would that be an acceptable simulation of cache-cold kernel execution?
The 'icache flusher' would be something simple, like 10,000x 5-byte NOP
instructions in a row, or so. This would slow things down immensely, but this
particular slowdown is the same for both OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y and
OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=n.
Any better ideas?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
