On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 22:42 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 12:18 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> On Fedora 21, this appears to be slightly faster, although pretty close
> to noise levels. Mark, can you see if this helps the performance slip
> on your el7 system?
It is slightly faster ~0.5 secs on ~55 secs.
Wait, I wasn't testing on an idle system. One of the cores was pretty
busy (with running a fuzzer...). I retested both the original
(mjw/pending) and your patch with nothing else eating cpu. Now (best of
3) original was 54.90 vs patched 53.90. So a whole second won.
> /* Unrolling 0 like uleb128 didn't prove to benefit
optimization. */
> - for (unsigned int i = 0; i < len_leb128 (acc) && *addrp < end;
++i)
> + const size_t max = __libdw_max_len_leb128 (*addrp, end);
> + for (size_t i = 0; i < max; ++i)
> get_sleb128_step (acc, *addrp, i);
> /* Other implementations set VALUE to INT_MAX in this
> case. So we better do this as well. */
Unrolling this does seem to give an addition ~0.2 seconds win.
Adding unrolling now (same idle system, best out of 3) gives me 54.28.
So it does seem like another slight 0.6 second win.
Cheers,
Mark