Hi, thanks for comparison. I miss test with both CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND and CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER disabled, theoreticaly it could be faster. Anyway, why regular user (no developer, nor tester) needs to have CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND or CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER enabled? I suggest to disable CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND in stable kernel images. Stable I mean (in this case) kernel versions which is well tested in SHR-t and stable revisions of Qt Moko.
Thanks Denis and Gennady. Martin 'Martix' Holec openmoko.cz/openmobility.cz 2011/3/8 Gennady Kupava <[email protected]>: > Hi, list. > > Today I noticed the following change in SHR: > http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=1516588acd3c4b4dd4add71d06ab8ce0d1bafa02 > (by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <[email protected]>) and decided to lmbench it. > > Here are results: http://www.bsdmn.com/lmbench/unwind_summary.txt > > You can see comparison of: > > 34def -> kernel with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER > unwind -> kernel with CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND > default -> for reference, old debugging kernel > > The unwind option provide clear benefit of 5%-10% in almost every area. > > Nice spot Denis! > > Gennady. > > > _______________________________________________ > Openmoko community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
