Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:04:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:04:14 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:12928 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:04:13 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: davidm@hpl.hp.com cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: performance experiment In-Reply-To: <200207261746.g6QHkjUp005023@napali.hpl.hp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2116 Lines: 48 On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, David Mosberger wrote: > Below is a patch that implements an alternate version of the core-loop > of do_select(). I'm interested in hearing how the two versions > (original and new) compare on various architectures. The new loop > happens to perform better on ia64 and I suspect the same will be true > for most RISC platforms. It wouldn't surprise me if the new loop > performed better even on some instances of x86. I suspect on older > x86s (e.g., 80486), the old loop does better. If someone is running > Linux on a Transmeta Crusoe chip, I'd be *very* interested in hearing > how the two loops perform there. > > Here is what I'm proposing to do: if a couple of people are willing to > try out the patch below, I'll collect the results and post a summary. > To make sure we're comparing apples to apples, I'd like to suggest to > run LMbench 2 with and without the patch below. Then send me the > select results from the raw results file. For example, you would run > lmbench like so: > > $ make rerun > > Then look at the results file, which is stored in > results/CONFIG/HOSTNAME.N. For example, on a Pentium III machine > called "adler", the results of the first run would be stored in > > results/i686-pc-linux-gnu/adler.0 > > I'd prefer if you sent me the complete result files, but if you don't > want to do that, it should be good enough to mail me the first and > second line of the file, all the lines starting with "Select", and a > description of the machine you were testing (CPU type, clock speed, > chipset, memory size, and compiler version would be ideal). For the > above example, the lines of interest would be: i posted a 95% matching patch about one year ago but it fell inside the Alan drop basket :-) basically Alan requested perf numbers that i did not have time to supply. glad you did them ... - Davide - 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/