Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:09:04 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: "arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: UPDATE Re: making use of userland dtrace on FreeBSD Message-ID: <20121227190904.GL82219@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20121227214354.V965@besplex.bde.org> References: <50D49DFF.3060803@ixsystems.com> <50DBC7E2.1070505@mu.org> <CAGE5yCq46NFKKzSUZq=jz0NwEnWdjPTK_0fpZ%2BwWV9FA0BSQCg@mail.gmail.com> <50DBD193.7080505@mu.org> <CAGE5yCrnoNhOh3VaYU3bO6BwA=bpxD5QzkZvD%2BHaUwvXNQ%2BUfw@mail.gmail.com> <50DBE0DB.6090804@ixsystems.com> <20121227214354.V965@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--kaF1vgn83Aa7CiXN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:39:44PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> After working around these bugs by putting the functions in separate files
> (and removing the now-unneeded volatiles):
>=20
> main.c:
> % void foo(void);
> %=20
> % int
> % main(void)
> % {
> % int i;
> %=20
> % for (i =3D 0; i < 100000000; i++)
> % foo();
> % }
>=20
> foo.c:
> % void bar(void);
> %=20
> % void
> % foo(void)
> % {
> % bar();
> % }
>=20
> bar.c:
> % void
> % bar(void)
> % {
> % }
>=20
> we can seem how much the frame pointer optimization is saving: this
> now takes 0.43 seconds with clang and 0.87 seconds with gcc. It
> is weird that the gcc time increased from 0.65 seconds to 0.87
> despite doing less. After adding back the volatiles, the times
> are 0.43 seconds with clang and 0.85 seconds with gcc -- doing
> more gave a small optimization, but didn't recover 0.65 seconds.
> There is apparently some magic alignment or misalignment which
> costs or saves about the same as omitting the frame pointer.
> Finally, with gcc -O -fomit-frame-pointer, the program takes 0.60
> seconds, and with gcc -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer, it takes 0.49
> seconds, and with gcc -O2, it takes 0.49 seconds (this really doesn't
> omit frame pointers, so omitting the frame pointer saves nothing),
> With cc -O -fno-omit-frame-pointer, it takes 0.43 seconds, but this
> case is just broken -- the -fno-omit-frame-pointer is silently ignored :-=
(.
I do not believe this measurement is indicative. i386 is
register-starved architecture. Using the frame pointer means that
you are left with only 6 registers instead of 7. For the PIC code,
there are 5 vs. 6. It is real code that does something more than
incrementing the same variable which could get the performance hit with
-fno-omit-frame-pointer for i386. But on i386 use of the frame pointer
is ABI mandated.
For amd64, there is no so high pressure on the register file, but I do
not know that much debugging tools which expect the frame pointer on
amd64 or could detect and use it if present. It is only ddb for our
kernel and dtrace for solaris and freebsd, gdb definitely does not.
> >>>> need a dwarf2+ unwinder and somebody to instrument the call frame
> >>>> state through the remaining assembler code.
>=20
> I wouldn't want it for ddb. ddb doesn't have access to any debug info
> except the symbol table.
The unwind tables are not debugging. They, if requested, are put into
the loadable segments. The dwarf unwind is required by the ABI on amd64,
and is specified for all other architectures.
--kaF1vgn83Aa7CiXN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)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=h0nY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--kaF1vgn83Aa7CiXN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121227190904.GL82219>