Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:59:10 -0700 | From | Dan Kegel <> | Subject | Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test? |
| |
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:21:37AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > >>http://cs.nmu.edu/~benchmark/ has an interesting little graph >>of LMBench results vs. Linux kernel version, all done with the >>same compiler. >> >>Has anyone seen a similar graph showing LMBench results vs. gcc version, >>all done with the same Linux kernel? >>And does everyone agree that's a meaningful way to compare the >>performance of code generated by different compilers? > > It's been a while since I looked at lmbench but: why do you think this > would be useful? It's a system and kernel benchmark; I doubt > optimization makes much difference at all.
I need to make sure that moving to a newer compiler for our kernel will cause no performance regressions. Before bothering to bring up a real-world networking application and measuring its performance under the new compiler, it seems sensible to use a couple microbenchmarks to verify that identifiable parts of the system have not degraded in performance.
I myself am quite convinced I need to move to a newer compiler, since I keep running into problems building various things with old compilers, but my users are very conservative and skeptical; I have to build a solid case for updating. Hence the insane amount of time I spent figuring out and documenting how to build and test the various versions of gcc and glibc (http://kegel.com/crosstool), and then understanding the regression test failures. - Dan
-- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045
- 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/
| |