![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Benjamin Saller Bender wrote: > Chris Evans <mailto:chris@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk> writes: > >I just compared 2.1.46 vs. 2.1.46+pentium memcpy patch, and interestingly > >enough found that the UNIX byte benchmarks tended to _drop_ a fair bit, > >with the exception of process creation and execl throughput. (Note that I > >only ran the basic 'system' tests - TCP bandwidth etc. to be determined > >when I find the newer benchmarks) > > > > >It does however show us that there still is performance to be gained. I > >presume the process creation test will be using fork() which does a lot of > >memcpy'ing of various process credentials in kernel space. > > > I haven't done the research to verify how well this will work under > Linux, but for large a memcpy on the P5 we may wanna consider using the FP > unit using double precision read and writes. I have sample code if anyone is > interested. > -- > Benjamin Saller Bender <case@AppliedTheory.com> > AppliedTheory Communications Software Engineering Group > http://AppliedTheory.com/ Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare. > > > I have done a lot of benching with it.. it's a big win here except for X mostly. There are places where it doesn't win.. ergo why it's not in the kernel tree?.. but it wins a LOT more than it loses here. -Mike | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||