This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: More on compile performance of Linux kernels in mainline gcc


Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> writes:

>> Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
>> 
>> > This is an addendum for the numbers for linux kernel compiling
>> > on x86-64 I posted some days ago. gcc tested is the same (041029)
>> > on the same machine with the same kernel tree/configuration.
>> 
>> I can't comment on most of this, but:
>> 
>> > Looks like the likely/unlikely split is not very effective,
>> > there are a lot of hot unlikely hits. 
>> 
>> That logic has known bugs.  You could try disabling it
>
> I didn't look too closely on Caroline's work, but what bugs do you
> know of?

I don't actually know anything specific.

It occurs to me that one possible explanation for Andi's observations
is that the partitioner decided that the *whole function* belonged in
the cold section.  This is a silly thing for it to do, but not out of
the question.

zw


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]