Well, I think we want to inform this through actual measurement. Right now,
tools like hwpmc track cache misses by point in executable code, but what
would be nice is if we could post-process to generate cache miss information
by data structure field...
That is one of the tools that I've
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:08:22PM +, Andrew Brampton wrote:
I found this useful tool called pahole[1]. It basically finds holes
within structs, so for example on my 64bit machine this struct:
struct test {
int foo;
const char *bar;
int blah;
}
Would have a hole between
2009/2/12 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:08:22PM +, Andrew Brampton wrote:
So I ran the tool pahole over a 7.1 FreeBSD Kernel, and found that
Did you ported it to FreeBSD, or run on the Linux host ?
Sorry no, I just ran it from a Linux host, but to my
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:08:22PM +, Andrew Brampton wrote:
I found this useful tool called pahole[1]. It basically finds holes
within structs, so for example on my 64bit machine this struct:
struct test {
1) Is it worth my time trying to rearrange structs?
I wondered whether as a sensitivity test, some version of gcc (or
its competitor ?) might have capability to automatically re-order
variables ? but found nothing in man gcc Optimization Options.
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey: BSDUnixLinux
On Thursday 12 February 2009 15:08:22 Andrew Brampton wrote:
So I ran the tool pahole over a 7.1 FreeBSD Kernel, and found that
many of the struct had holes, and some of which could be rearranged to
fill the gap.
Interesting tool ...
I've made the list available here[2]. So my
* Max Laier m...@love2party.net wrote:
So to answer your first question, submitting 101 patches to rearrange 101
structs is certainly a wasted effort. However, if you take a good look at
the
2000 holes, identify an interesting subset and submit a patch to fix that
subset ... that would
Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2009 15:08:22 Andrew Brampton wrote:
So I ran the tool pahole over a 7.1 FreeBSD Kernel, and found that
many of the struct had holes, and some of which could be rearranged to
fill the gap.
Interesting tool ...
Someone should be able to do
Julian Stacey schreef:
1) Is it worth my time trying to rearrange structs?
I wondered whether as a sensitivity test, some version of gcc (or
its competitor ?) might have capability to automatically re-order
variables ? but found nothing in man gcc Optimization Options.
There is a __packed
On Thursday 12 February 2009 17:42:19 Sam Leffler wrote:
Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2009 15:08:22 Andrew Brampton wrote:
So I ran the tool pahole over a 7.1 FreeBSD Kernel, and found that
many of the struct had holes, and some of which could be rearranged to
fill the gap.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 05:54:24PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2009 17:42:19 Sam Leffler wrote:
Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2009 15:08:22 Andrew Brampton wrote:
So I ran the tool pahole over a 7.1 FreeBSD Kernel, and found that
many of the struct had
Hi,
Reference:
From: Jille Timmermans ji...@quis.cx
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:34:23 +0100
Message-id: 49944f8f.5080...@quis.cx
Jille Timmermans wrote:
Julian Stacey schreef:
1) Is it worth my time trying to rearrange structs?
I wondered whether as a sensitivity
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Max Laier wrote:
That's the tricky part. Rearranging the structs itself is not that
difficult, but identifying which should be rearranged and if, how ... that's
the problem. The fact that gaps might be different for 64 vs. 32 bit
architectures has already been
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Ed Schouten wrote:
* Max Laier m...@love2party.net wrote:
So to answer your first question, submitting 101 patches to rearrange 101
structs is certainly a wasted effort. However, if you take a good look at the
2000 holes, identify an interesting subset and submit a patch
Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2009 17:42:19 Sam Leffler wrote:
Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 12 February 2009 15:08:22 Andrew Brampton wrote:
So I ran the tool pahole over a 7.1 FreeBSD Kernel, and found that
many of the struct had holes, and some of which could be
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Max Laier wrote:
So to answer your first question, submitting 101 patches to rearrange 101
structs is certainly a wasted effort. However, if you take a good look at
the 2000 holes, identify an interesting subset and submit a patch to fix
that subset ... that would be a
So I ran the tool pahole over a 7.1 FreeBSD Kernel, and found that
many of the struct had holes, and some of which could be rearranged to
fill the gap.
...
Certainly plugging holes can also be beneficial but just cautioning that
changes of this sort need to be checked if made to
On Feb 12, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Jille Timmermans wrote:
Julian Stacey schreef:
1) Is it worth my time trying to rearrange structs?
I wondered whether as a sensitivity test, some version of gcc (or
its competitor ?) might have capability to automatically re-order
variables ? but found nothing
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Feb 12, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Jille Timmermans wrote:
Julian Stacey schreef:
1) Is it worth my time trying to rearrange structs?
I wondered whether as a sensitivity test, some version of gcc (or
its competitor ?) might have capability to
At 2:08 PM + 2/12/09, Andrew Brampton wrote:
I found this useful tool called pahole[1]. It basically finds holes
within structs, so for example on my 64bit machine this struct:
struct test {
int foo;
const char *bar;
int blah;
}
Would have a hole between foo and bar of 4 bytes
20 matches
Mail list logo
