lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.1.6 vs. 2.0.23
    Date
    In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.961030020537.17325E-100000@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:

    Here it definitely looks like the effects of the pentium memcpy() code: the
    file re-read speed of your 2.0.23 is better than on 2.1.6, and is actually
    better than the libc bcopy.

    I'd have expected the same thing in the pipe throughput too, but it
    seems the overhead for context switching the FPU state might impact
    the pipe throughput negatively (wild hand-waving here ;)

    The Pentium memcpy code doesn't kick in until the amount copied is up
    to 1K; my measurements suggest that it's actually a net win even at
    512 bytes. What I suspect is happening is that the pipe buffers fit
    in cache. On my system, the FPU does better than rep movsd when it's
    in L2 cache, but not in L1. I have async cache; it's quite possible
    that pipeline burst acts differently. Upshot: the FPU memcpy
    generally does relatively poorly when the destination is already in
    cache, since the FPU instructions are slow.
    --
    Robert Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/

    Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net
    Tall Clubs International -- tci-request@tall.org or 1-800-521-2512

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.018 / U:29.676 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site