On 12/07/2014 05:23 PM, Petr Machata wrote: > Josh Stone <jist...@redhat.com> writes: > >> I'll see if I can grab that old kernel debuginfo to do a more direct >> comparison. > > You could grab the old code and compare that. If you're still in the > 80's, it's the data, not the code.
Ok, well my former optimizations went into 0.158. Here are some quick runs of "varlocs -k >/dev/null" on kernel-3.17.4-301.fc21.x86_64: 0.157 96.00user 0.12system 1:36.08elapsed 0.158 70.22user 0.12system 1:10.32elapsed 0.159 71.40user 0.11system 1:11.48elapsed 0.160 73.24user 0.12system 1:13.33elapsed master 77.65user 0.10system 1:17.72elapsed patched 77.87user 0.10system 1:17.93elapsed So each release has ceded a bit of performance, but this particular patch isn't much of an issue. Correctness trumps performance anyway. For fun, here are the counts from dwgrep -e 'entry attribute form': 3.11.9-300.fc20.x86_64/vmlinux: 2 DW_FORM_block2 252 DW_FORM_block1 24975 DW_FORM_data4 182227 DW_FORM_data8 259701 DW_FORM_sdata 330195 DW_FORM_addr 387491 DW_FORM_sec_offset 537586 DW_FORM_exprloc 558135 DW_FORM_string 1397719 DW_FORM_flag_present 3353170 DW_FORM_data2 5220907 DW_FORM_strp 9263689 DW_FORM_ref4 13543053 DW_FORM_data1 3.17.4-301.fc21.x86_64/vmlinux: 2 DW_FORM_block2 256 DW_FORM_block1 26740 DW_FORM_data4 112315 DW_FORM_exprloc 197526 DW_FORM_data8 213497 DW_FORM_sec_offset 340039 DW_FORM_sdata 358462 DW_FORM_addr 641163 DW_FORM_string 1578298 DW_FORM_flag_present 3857598 DW_FORM_data2 6023993 DW_FORM_strp 10463444 DW_FORM_ref4 15532042 DW_FORM_data1 Also .text size grew from 10082549 to 11513127. So it's all bigger, but roughly proportional.
