lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Interesting pentium-memcpy results
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    [W:0.047 / U:8.276 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site