performance testing of UNWIND kernel option
Hi, list. Today I noticed the following change in SHR: http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=1516588acd3c4b4dd4add71d06ab8ce0d1bafa02 (by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli gnu...@no-log.org) 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 community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: performance testing of UNWIND kernel option
Em 08-03-2011 14:01, Gennady Kupava escreveu: Hi, list. Today I noticed the following change in SHR: http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=1516588acd3c4b4dd4add71d06ab8ce0d1bafa02 (by Denis 'GNUtoo' Cariklignu...@no-log.org) 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! It does feel faster! OpenMoko Freerunner, probably the only obsolete phone that keeps getting better :) Rui ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: performance testing of UNWIND kernel option
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 g...@bsdmn.com: Hi, list. Today I noticed the following change in SHR: http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=1516588acd3c4b4dd4add71d06ab8ce0d1bafa02 (by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli gnu...@no-log.org) 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 community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: performance testing of UNWIND kernel option
Ok, it is reasonable to keep CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND enabled when this option have no practical effect on performance or latency in kernel. So, keep it enabled. :-) Martin 'Martix' Holec openmoko.cz / openmobility.cz 2011/3/8 Gennady Kupava g...@bsdmn.com: Hi, 1. UNWIND do not influence performance, so enabling it should make no harm (according to kernel doc, i trust em 99.9%). 2. ability to get stack trace is widely accepted bare minimum of debug info, this is info is _really_ (not like other hardly usable debugging stuff were enabled earlier) invaluable for fixing and identifying problems found. So, no reason remove both. It is even kind of switch in kernel config turn on UNWIND - FRAME_POINTER turns off. No affect on performance, add ability to identify problem - must have IMO. Gennady. В Втр, 08/03/2011 в 16:40 +0100, Martix пишет: 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 g...@bsdmn.com: Hi, list. Today I noticed the following change in SHR: http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=1516588acd3c4b4dd4add71d06ab8ce0d1bafa02 (by Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli gnu...@no-log.org) 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 community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
