On 01/24/2013 09:25 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:56:26AM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> There has been occasional talk about a -Ok(ernel) option to gcc, but
>> that would require someone to go through gcc and figure out what bits
>> makes sense and which don't...
>
> Ye
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:56:26AM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> There has been occasional talk about a -Ok(ernel) option to gcc, but
> that would require someone to go through gcc and figure out what bits
> makes sense and which don't...
Yep, such an option has a great potential for us and, if d
On 01/24/2013 08:46 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure about -Os: 3a55fb0d9fe8e2f4594329edd58c5fd6f35a99dd
>
> And 0.01/0.03 IPC improvement doesn't really look too persuasive IMO.
>
There has been occasional talk about a -Ok(ernel) option to gcc, but
that would require someone to
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 03:17:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So our initial conclusion is Os is better than O2 for current
> > & coming x86 CPUs. If I was wrong, please correct me.
>
> Did you patch the kernel, or used CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE?
>
> (there was no patch in your mail.)
Hmm,
* ling.ma.prog...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ma Ling
>
> Currently we use O2 as compiler option for better performance,
> although it will enlarge code size, in modern CPUs larger instructon
> and unified cache, sophisticated instruction prefetch weaken instruction
> cache miss, meanwhile flag
Hi Ingo,
By netperf we did double check on older Nehalem platform too as below:
O2 NHM
Performance counter stats for 'netperf' (3 runs):
3779.262214 task-clock#0.378 CPUs utilized
( +- 0.37% )
47,580 context-switches #0.013 M/sec
6 matches
Mail list logo
