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

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:

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

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