Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 May 1999 09:21:43 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Performance Comparison |
| |
Alan Cox writes: > > Alan probably misread the original message because HINT benchmark indeed > > I did. Sorry for not replying earlier but I've been in the Algarve for a few > days. > > > As with any other benchmark the compiler used does show in the results > > but not terribly much. To be completely certain the benchmark should be > > compiled with the same compiler, version and optimization flags which I > > think wasn't the case with Otto Solares' test runs but this can't > > explain all the differences. > > The BSD and Linux gcc will produce close to identical code and different > libcs. If libc is involved then its still clearly a valid benchmark just > different things need fixing > > > Yes, I agree. I suggest more people to try the HINT benchmark. The code > > is ANSI-C and seems generally professional quite unlike the bytemark > > benchmark. > > A benchmark from an outside source, with no bias, with source code and no > huge fees is a rather nice thing. > > Richard Gooch has a performance monitoring patch for Linux. The PMC registers > on the PPro and higher can count many types of cache misses which may be > most enligtening
<blush> I guess I should update that patch. OK, done. See: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/kernel-patches.html
Regards,
Richard....
- 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.tux.org/lkml/
| |