[LLVMdev] Stack protector performance

[Bill Wendling]

If you compile this with optimizations, then the 'canary()' function should be totally inlined into the 'main()' function. In that case, the cost of the stack protectors will be very small compared to the loop.

-bw

On Mar 9, 2012, at 2:52 AM, Job Noorman <jobnoorman at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a question about the performance of the implementation of the stack
> protector in LLVM.
> 
> Consider the following C program:
> =====
> void canary()
> {
>    char buf[20];
>    buf[0]++;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    int i;
>    for (i = 0; i < 1000000000; ++i)
>        canary();
>    return 0;
> }
> =====
> 
> This should definately run slower when stack protection is enabled, right?
> 
> I have measured the runtime of this program on two different systems compiled
> with GCC and LLVM. Here are the results (percentages are the difference with
> the unprotected version of the program):
> 
>     | Desktop | Laptop |
> -----+---------+--------+
> GCC  |  +13%   |  +277% |
> LLVM | -3%(!)  |  +330% |
> 
> (These measurements are the median values of 10 runs.)
> 
> So the obvious question is: can anybody explain how it is possible that using
> the stack protector causes the program to run 3% faster on my desktop?
> 
> I have tried profiling the program using valgrind (cachegrind & callgrind) but
> the results show absolutely no reason at all for these measurements.
> 
> I have attached an archive with the source code and compiled binaries.
> 
> Here are the specs of the two systems:
> * Desktop
> - Ubuntu 11.10
> - Linux 3.0.0-16-generic-pae
> - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz (2048K cache)
> * Laptop
> - Ubuntu 11.10
> - Linux 3.0.0-16-generic
> - Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N450 @ 1.66GHz (512K cache)
> 
> Kind regards,
> Job
> <canary.tgz>_______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev