From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 29 16:59:07 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF7F994 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 16:59:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CEB8FC18 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 16:59:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tom.home (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBTGwxHW031561; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:58:59 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.7.3 kib.kiev.ua qBTGwxHW031561 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id qBTGwwBV031560; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:58:58 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:58:58 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Bruce Evans Subject: Re: UPDATE Re: making use of userland dtrace on FreeBSD Message-ID: <20121229165858.GE82219@kib.kiev.ua> References: <50D49DFF.3060803@ixsystems.com> <50DBC7E2.1070505@mu.org> <50DBD193.7080505@mu.org> <50DBE0DB.6090804@ixsystems.com> <20121227214354.V965@besplex.bde.org> <20121227190904.GL82219@kib.kiev.ua> <20121228224312.X1054@besplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vDpvzslK0qRw06MN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121228224312.X1054@besplex.bde.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on tom.home Cc: "arch@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 16:59:07 -0000 --vDpvzslK0qRw06MN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:22:57AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > i386 times on ref10-i386: > gcc -O2 -o f main.c bar.c foo.c: 0.81 seconds > gcc -O2 -o f main.c bar.c foo.c -fno-omit-frame-pointer: 0.81 seconds > gcc -O2 -o f main.c bar.c foo.c -fomit-frame-pointer 0.83 seconds > cc -O2 -o f main.c bar.c foo.c: 1.11 seconds > cc -O2 -o f main.c bar.c foo.c -fno-omit-frame-pointer: 1.11 seconds > cc -O2 -o f main.c bar.c foo.c -fomit-frame-pointer 1.11 seconds >=20 > 0.81 seconds is 15.08 cycles/iteration in the inner loop. 0.83 seconds > is 15.45 cycles/iteration. 1.11 seconds is 20.67 cycles/iteration. I increased the number of iterations in the main() from 100 to 1000, and I get 34.1s for -fomit-frame-pointer version vs. 44.1s for -fno-omit with i7 930 and gcc 4.7.2 -O3. I say it is very significant difference. --vDpvzslK0qRw06MN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ3yFRAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1B5SsP/AxEQc4ctq7RSOdrLzHnp7if JCWEh6RlzzEJ0kxSWLXCg+/WhO8d9lEj9uBW3d7jKYHqs7KcXiIEUD93SJ6cNTFR aFdi3rt0UiyimCDvJJScAFpSsdwJ/8RlnzZ1PWAaUh4P0CX8ktqt37/AnBSqxKq3 79YGLZ0qhjz6YSvDh8StpHo6KHOIGTPYbmx9cApR4Eeeke5yw+h6yOdmAMacgVrO POyiYikWru/uAUUBFVT8G8U9qXuInGMvRKkZeaT3NknPauVzunGEmAYkw2ad3aVq HmsqWgDb0tDjNFTvrChA2K9VUkFKQwEKKcI5aQhTI6KkXutP2/cS5f5kbc3RZANO TWWL2G0ezoizRlCEjBE3K1FHVc7SlKvvAuE/uM0PP+D3WYvazQhyKOW0UZrx0e4x OKr/I5g6ynu34L6E7ckypnXJdrA4zMy+ZcnEIPvKFYZ6LchGHEVIkL2k92KoF0fW 6KCPC7tEAsHuCmF+pYRanVMI9y7dgzRQWHNmiIjF4jSqF26c9vsgYDEljaLh5f4x f6mLaqDj7ina3nPW1xtkeuQkRK/PzeLx0bM5UYu7aPxxjt9wKEy3p8j21Rneb9WN DsUIhty4GmpZZR5FWbdVeDHeXJ7cbaE8ghM2UqNNPAl7L8RBjRV+s7uteNJ3ec+v YT+IF3JbaM0lrD+vwKww =Pfls -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vDpvzslK0qRw06MN--