Re: Testing optimize-for-size suitability?

From: Rogério Brito (rbrito_at_ime.usp.br)
Date: 01/16/05

  • Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: conglomerate objects in reference*.pl" 
    Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:18:47 -0200
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>

    On Jan 16 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 10:40 -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
    > > Is there a benchmark or set of benchmarks that would allow me to test
    > > the suitability of the CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE kernel config
    > > option?
    >
    > it also saves 400 kb of memory that can be used by the pagecache now...
    > that doesn't show in a microbenchmark but it's a quite sizable gain if
    > you remember that a disk seek is 10msec..that is a LOT of cpu cycles..

    Since I'm using a Duron 600MHz (the lowest model, AFAIK), I decided to
    compile a new kernel with the -Os option. Despite the scary warning on the
    help, it seems to be working fine for the first few moments with Debian's
    testing gcc (3.3.5).

    I haven't noticed any other improvement, but I guess that more memory
    available to applications would never hurt (as long as stability is
    preserved).

    I will also try to compile other applications (like Firefox), since my main
    memory is so limited and the small cache of my processor would surely
    appreciate it.

    Perhaps it is time to give the tiny-linux project a try to see what other
    optimizations I can achieve.

    Just another data point, Rogério. 

    -- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Rogério Brito - rbrito@ime.usp.br - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  • Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: conglomerate objects in reference*.pl"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: readdir loses renamed files
      ... > slower, penalizing all other applications on your system, just because ... > memory, while the application calls readdir(). ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: large files unnecessary trashing filesystem cache?
      ... > list about very large files trashing the filesystems memory cache leading to ... > My guess was, it has something to do with mm/readahead.c, a test limiting the ... Is there a reason why those applications couldn't use O_DIRECT? ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Another Memory question!
      ... If you want a "pure" dual channel mode, ... part of the memory space is currently being used by your ... Designing a benchmark to pinpoint the differences would ... where the applications are storing their data in memory, ...
      (alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus)
    • large files unnecessary trashing filesystem cache?
      ... list about very large files trashing the filesystems memory cache leading to ... Of course one could always implement f_advise-calls in all applications, ... My guess was, it has something to do with mm/readahead.c, a test limiting the ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Zeroed pages returned for heap
      ... >>also an application) to assume that the pages returned by the OS for heap ... > memory would seem to be making very dangerous assumptions. ... > pieces of memory to applications without erasing the old contents of the ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)