lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kernel compile time comparison (2.0 vs 2.1 with 64MB)
Hi all,

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Andrew Derrick Balsa wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> ....
> >
> >Kernel compilation seems cpu and/or memory bound, and the measurements
> >seem to indicate that the measurements that I make don't distinguish the
> >two.
>
> It's hard to tell unless you keep the other parameter constant, and in the case
> of the Celeron oc.@412MHz vs. PPro200, this is impossible. The Celeron has a
> small 32KB L1 cache and that's it. The PPro has both an L1 cache and an L2
> cache (you didn't say but I assume it is the more common 256KB model).

Not having a L2 cache is a killer to performance. The Celeron is memory
bound in this particular case. GCC uses a lot of memory which, of course,
doesn't fit on the Celeron L1 cache. What we are probably seeing here are
pipeline stalls due to cache misses. These bring a 412Mhz CPU down to a
PPro 200 level. Assuming very similar arch, the Celeron is internaly idle
50% of the time (probably more, since PPro isn't 100% busy). Of course,
rating CPU performace based on Mhz is a well known fallacy.

Cheers,

Rafael


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.157 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site