Why not build kernel with -O3

Why not build kernel with -O3

[Pengfei Yuan]

Hi,

I have conducted some experiments to compare kernels built with -O2
and -O3. Here are the results:

Application  Performance O2   Performance O3   Improvement
Apache       127814.14 req/s  130321.24 req/s  1.96%
Nginx        537589.08 req/s  556723.32 req/s  3.56%
MySQL        70661.38 tx/s    71008.47 tx/s    0.49%
PostgreSQL   79763.39 tx/s    79535.59 tx/s    -0.29%
Redis        352547.47 op/s   405417.24 op/s   15.0%
Memcached    844439.14 op/s   845321.79 op/s   0.10%

Geomean: +3.34%

Experiment environment: Linux 3.19.3, GCC 4.9.3 prerelease, Core-i7
4770, 32G RAM, 10GbE

LMbench microbenchmark also shows reduction in various latencies, as
well as increase of throughputs.

Why not add an option to build kernel with -O3?

Regards,
YUAN, Pengfei

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Mike Galbraith]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:37 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have conducted some experiments to compare kernels built with -O2
> and -O3. Here are the results:
> 
> Application  Performance O2   Performance O3   Improvement
> Apache       127814.14 req/s  130321.24 req/s  1.96%
> Nginx        537589.08 req/s  556723.32 req/s  3.56%
> MySQL        70661.38 tx/s    71008.47 tx/s    0.49%
> PostgreSQL   79763.39 tx/s    79535.59 tx/s    -0.29%
> Redis        352547.47 op/s   405417.24 op/s   15.0%
> Memcached    844439.14 op/s   845321.79 op/s   0.10%
> 
> Geomean: +3.34%
> 
> Experiment environment: Linux 3.19.3, GCC 4.9.3 prerelease, Core-i7
> 4770, 32G RAM, 10GbE
> 
> LMbench microbenchmark also shows reduction in various latencies, as
> well as increase of throughputs.

Please show multiple run data for all permutations of supported gcc 
version/arch ;-)

        -Mike

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Boaz Harrosh]

On 04/07/2015 09:43 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:37 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have conducted some experiments to compare kernels built with -O2
>> and -O3. Here are the results:
>>
>> Application  Performance O2   Performance O3   Improvement
>> Apache       127814.14 req/s  130321.24 req/s  1.96%
>> Nginx        537589.08 req/s  556723.32 req/s  3.56%
>> MySQL        70661.38 tx/s    71008.47 tx/s    0.49%
>> PostgreSQL   79763.39 tx/s    79535.59 tx/s    -0.29%
>> Redis        352547.47 op/s   405417.24 op/s   15.0%
>> Memcached    844439.14 op/s   845321.79 op/s   0.10%
>>
>> Geomean: +3.34%
>>
>> Experiment environment: Linux 3.19.3, GCC 4.9.3 prerelease, Core-i7
>> 4770, 32G RAM, 10GbE
>>
>> LMbench microbenchmark also shows reduction in various latencies, as
>> well as increase of throughputs.
> 
> Please show multiple run data for all permutations of supported gcc 
> version/arch ;-)
> 

He did say optional. So I'd imagine it would be a Kconfig of its own.
So the default can be as today, but people that want to experiment
need not hack the source code.

Cheers
Boaz

>         -Mike

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Pengfei Yuan]

I am trying legacy GCC versions.
But I am not able to try different architectures.

2015-04-07 14:43 GMT+08:00 Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:37 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have conducted some experiments to compare kernels built with -O2
>> and -O3. Here are the results:
>>
>> Application  Performance O2   Performance O3   Improvement
>> Apache       127814.14 req/s  130321.24 req/s  1.96%
>> Nginx        537589.08 req/s  556723.32 req/s  3.56%
>> MySQL        70661.38 tx/s    71008.47 tx/s    0.49%
>> PostgreSQL   79763.39 tx/s    79535.59 tx/s    -0.29%
>> Redis        352547.47 op/s   405417.24 op/s   15.0%
>> Memcached    844439.14 op/s   845321.79 op/s   0.10%
>>
>> Geomean: +3.34%
>>
>> Experiment environment: Linux 3.19.3, GCC 4.9.3 prerelease, Core-i7
>> 4770, 32G RAM, 10GbE
>>
>> LMbench microbenchmark also shows reduction in various latencies, as
>> well as increase of throughputs.
>
> Please show multiple run data for all permutations of supported gcc
> version/arch ;-)
>
>         -Mike

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Mike Galbraith]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 10:07 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> 
> He did say optional. So I'd imagine it would be a Kconfig of its own.
> So the default can be as today, but people that want to experiment
> need not hack the source code.

Anybody wanting to play with it will just twiddle the Makefile.  
Anyone too lazy to do that is likely lying on the couch watching 
cartoons or something, not building kernels :)

        -Mike

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Mike Galbraith]

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 15:56 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
> I am trying legacy GCC versions.
> But I am not able to try different architectures.

The point of my reply wasn't to get you to actually test the world ;-)

I was indirectly pointing out that "works for me" is not good enough 
justification.  Much checking for safety/benefit required.

        -Mike

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

On 2015-04-07 06:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 15:56 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
>> I am trying legacy GCC versions.
>> But I am not able to try different architectures.
> 
> The point of my reply wasn't to get you to actually test the world ;-)
> 
> I was indirectly pointing out that "works for me" is not good enough 
> justification.  Much checking for safety/benefit required.
> 
Safety especially, -O3 is known to cause perfectly standards-compliant
code to break in weird ways in user-space.



[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2967 bytes --]

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Pengfei Yuan]

Could you please provide some examples that I can investigate?
Thanks!

2015-04-08 2:05 GMT+08:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>:
> On 2015-04-07 06:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 15:56 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
>>> I am trying legacy GCC versions.
>>> But I am not able to try different architectures.
>>
>> The point of my reply wasn't to get you to actually test the world ;-)
>>
>> I was indirectly pointing out that "works for me" is not good enough
>> justification.  Much checking for safety/benefit required.
>>
> Safety especially, -O3 is known to cause perfectly standards-compliant
> code to break in weird ways in user-space.
>
>

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1277 bytes --]

On 2015-04-07 21:00, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
> Could you please provide some examples that I can investigate?
> Thanks!
>
> 2015-04-08 2:05 GMT+08:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>:
>> On 2015-04-07 06:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 15:56 +0800, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
>>>> I am trying legacy GCC versions.
>>>> But I am not able to try different architectures.
>>>
>>> The point of my reply wasn't to get you to actually test the world ;-)
>>>
>>> I was indirectly pointing out that "works for me" is not good enough
>>> justification.  Much checking for safety/benefit required.
>>>
>> Safety especially, -O3 is known to cause perfectly standards-compliant
>> code to break in weird ways in user-space.
>>
>>
I can't remember any off the top of my head, but it does say explicitly 
in the GCC manual to be careful with -O3.  IIRC, most of the issues 
relate to -O3 enabling -ffast-math (which tends to really mess with code 
that expects strict IEEE 754 compliance), so it may not be as much of an 
issue for kernel code.  You might look into some of the projects that 
use -O3 by default (I think most of the Mozilla so0ftware does these 
days, and I know that there are others, I just can't remember what right 
now).


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2967 bytes --]

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Richard Weinberger]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pengfei Yuan <0xcoolypf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could you please provide some examples that I can investigate?
> Thanks!

It would be awesome if you could find out which gcc optimizations
cause the speed up.
"gcc -c -Q -O3 --help=optimizers" will help you.

Please also double check your results.
You need do to multiple runs, etc...
Especially the redis speed up looks odd. Does redis really spend that much time
in the kernel?

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 680 bytes --]

On 2015-04-08 08:19, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pengfei Yuan <0xcoolypf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could you please provide some examples that I can investigate?
>> Thanks!
>
> It would be awesome if you could find out which gcc optimizations
> cause the speed up.
> "gcc -c -Q -O3 --help=optimizers" will help you.
>
> Please also double check your results.
> You need do to multiple runs, etc...
> Especially the redis speed up looks odd. Does redis really spend that much time
> in the kernel?
>
My guess would be that much of the speed up is actually related to 
context switch handling and the scheduling/statistics related code.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2967 bytes --]

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[One Thousand Gnomes]

> I can't remember any off the top of my head, but it does say explicitly 
> in the GCC manual to be careful with -O3.  IIRC, most of the issues 
> relate to -O3 enabling -ffast-math (which tends to really mess with code 
> that expects strict IEEE 754 compliance), so it may not be as much of an 
> issue for kernel code.  You might look into some of the projects that 
> use -O3 by default (I think most of the Mozilla so0ftware does these 
> days, and I know that there are others, I just can't remember what right 
> now).

Historically -O3 used to produce code that used a lot more memory and was
frequently neither correct nor fast. That was however in the days of gcc
2.7.x and I don't know that anyone has taken a hard look at stuff with a
modern gcc.

At the very least I think a -O3 change for x86 as well as being
benchmarked would need to go through all the stress testers and
regression testing build systems we now have to try and catch any
surprises.

If your numbers are right then it looks well worth investigating.

Alan

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Pengfei Yuan]

2015-04-08 20:19 GMT+08:00 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pengfei Yuan <0xcoolypf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could you please provide some examples that I can investigate?
>> Thanks!
>
> It would be awesome if you could find out which gcc optimizations
> cause the speed up.
> "gcc -c -Q -O3 --help=optimizers" will help you.
>

This is really helpful.
But I can only find very short description for each option from
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html

> Please also double check your results.
> You need do to multiple runs, etc...
> Especially the redis speed up looks odd. Does redis really spend that much time
> in the kernel?

Redis is special among the six applications because it is single-threaded.

Yuan

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Pengfei Yuan]

2015-04-08 20:06 GMT+08:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>:
> I can't remember any off the top of my head, but it does say explicitly in
> the GCC manual to be careful with -O3.  IIRC, most of the issues relate to
> -O3 enabling -ffast-math (which tends to really mess with code that expects
> strict IEEE 754 compliance), so it may not be as much of an issue for kernel
> code.  You might look into some of the projects that use -O3 by default (I
> think most of the Mozilla so0ftware does these days, and I know that there
> are others, I just can't remember what right now).
>

I am afraid you are talking about -Ofast, not -O3.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html

Yuan

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Richard Weinberger]

Am 08.04.2015 um 15:16 schrieb Pengfei Yuan:
> 2015-04-08 20:19 GMT+08:00 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pengfei Yuan <0xcoolypf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Could you please provide some examples that I can investigate?
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> It would be awesome if you could find out which gcc optimizations
>> cause the speed up.
>> "gcc -c -Q -O3 --help=optimizers" will help you.
>>
> 
> This is really helpful.
> But I can only find very short description for each option from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html

Yeah, but if you know -fXY gives a nice speed up we can add it to our
CFLAGS if it makes sense and has not much downsides.
Blindly enabling -O3 can be dangerous as it might make the generated code
much bigger and the asm unreadable.

>> Please also double check your results.
>> You need do to multiple runs, etc...
>> Especially the redis speed up looks odd. Does redis really spend that much time
>> in the kernel?
> 
> Redis is special among the six applications because it is single-threaded.

Still it would be nice to now much more about the load and why -O3 helps.

Thanks,
//richard

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On 2015-04-08 09:19, Pengfei Yuan wrote:
> 2015-04-08 20:06 GMT+08:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>:
>> I can't remember any off the top of my head, but it does say explicitly in
>> the GCC manual to be careful with -O3.  IIRC, most of the issues relate to
>> -O3 enabling -ffast-math (which tends to really mess with code that expects
>> strict IEEE 754 compliance), so it may not be as much of an issue for kernel
>> code.  You might look into some of the projects that use -O3 by default (I
>> think most of the Mozilla so0ftware does these days, and I know that there
>> are others, I just can't remember what right now).
>>
>
> I am afraid you are talking about -Ofast, not -O3.
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
>
> Yuan
>
You're right, I had been looking at the wrong paragraph in the info 
manual.  Sorry about any confusion.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2967 bytes --]

Re: Why not build kernel with -O3

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> I have conducted some experiments to compare kernels built with -O2
> and -O3. Here are the results:
> 
> Application  Performance O2   Performance O3   Improvement
> Apache       127814.14 req/s  130321.24 req/s  1.96%
> Nginx        537589.08 req/s  556723.32 req/s  3.56%
> MySQL        70661.38 tx/s    71008.47 tx/s    0.49%
> PostgreSQL   79763.39 tx/s    79535.59 tx/s    -0.29%
> Redis        352547.47 op/s   405417.24 op/s   15.0%
> Memcached    844439.14 op/s   845321.79 op/s   0.10%
> 
> Geomean: +3.34%
> 
> Experiment environment: Linux 3.19.3, GCC 4.9.3 prerelease, Core-i7
> 4770, 32G RAM, 10GbE
> 
> LMbench microbenchmark also shows reduction in various latencies, as
> well as increase of throughputs.

What is the size difference with -O3?

Do you have mostly-userspace benchmark? (kernel build?) -O3 could hurt there 
if it produces bigger code..
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html