Re: Performance analysis of Linux Kernel Markers 0.20 for 2.6.17

[Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>]

On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 23:42 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Nicholas Miell (nmiell@comcast.net) wrote:
> > 
> > Has anyone done any performance measurements with the "regular function
> > call replaced by a NOP" type of marker?
> > 
> 
> Here it is (on the same setup as the other tests : Pentium 4, 3 GHz) :
> 
> * Execute an empty loop
> 
> - Without marker
> NR_LOOPS : 10000000
> time delta (cycles): 15026497
> cycles per loop : 1.50
> 
> - With 5 NOPs
> NR_LOOPS : 100000
> time delta (cycles): 300157
> cycles per loop : 3.00
> added cycles per loop for nops : 3.00-1.50 = 1.50
> 
> 
> * Execute a loop of memcpy 4096 bytes
> 
> - Without marker
> NR_LOOPS : 10000
> time delta (cycles): 12981555
> cycles per loop : 1298.16
> 
> - With 5 NOPs
> NR_LOOPS : 10000
> time delta (cycles): 12983925
> cycles per loop : 1298.39
> added cycles per loop for nops : 0.23
> 
> 
> If we compare this approach to the jump-over-call markers (in cycles per loop) :
> 
>               NOPs    Jump over call generic    Jump over call optimized
> empty loop    1.50    1.17                      2.50 
> memcpy        0.23    2.12                      0.07
> 
> 
> 
> Mathieu

What about with two NOPs (".byte 0x66, 0x66, 0x90, 0x66, 0x90" - this
should work with everything) or one (".byte 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x44, 0x00,
0x00" - AFAIK, this should work with P6 or newer).

(Sorry, I should have mentioned this the first time.)

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>

-
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/