[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Memory performance significantly improved w/ 2.4.1ac11
Mark Hahn skrev:
> first, are you sure your clock is write? the changes appear
> to be tiny ~2 MB/s, and might be explained by the fact that
> 2.2 and 2.4 have different implementations of gettimeofday.

The change I was happy about was the one between 2.4.0ac10 and
2.4.1ac11. I think that it's a good thing that a few percent more memory
bandwidth appears from nowhere... Well, but that's just me I guess.

> (I'm assuming you're using gtod (second_wall.c) rather than
> a times-based measure. the latter will be far less accurate.)

*Scratching my head* I have no idea of what your're talking about.
Sorry. Im using stream_whatever.cpp and whatever might be in it.

> are you also aware that more modern compilers (2.95.2, I think)
> have more specific CPU tunings than just -mpentium?

I just used the suggested optimizations.

> by "cycle length = 2", do you mean "tCAS latency = 2"?

Not quite sure, that the BIOS says "sdram cycle length=2" is all I know.

> finally (and don't take offense), those are astonishingly low
> Stream scores. it's been a while since I ran Stream on a p5-class
> machine, but jeeze! my dirt-cheap duron/600/kt133/pc133 sustains
> 600 MB/s!

Oh-well, I guess I just have a even dirt-cheaper machine than you. I
haven't got any idea of how machines similar to mine perform.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.047 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site