Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:36:08 +0200 | From | "Simen Thoresen" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Athlon bug stomper. Pls apply. |
| |
>Dan Hollis wrote: >> >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > It is _probably_ an undocumented performance thing, and clearing that >> > bit may slow something down. But it might also change some behaviour, >> > and knowing _what_ the behaviour is might be very useful for figuring >> > out what it is that triggers the problem. >> >> AFAIK noone has even tested it yet to see what it does to performance! Eg >> it might slow down memory access so that athlon-optimized memcopy is now >> slower than non-athlon-optimized memcopy. And if it turns out to be the >> case, we might as well just use the non-athlon-optimized memcopy instead >> of twiddling undocumented northbridge bits... > >Ok but that part is simple: > >run > >http://www.fenrus.demon.nl/athlon.c >
On my non-buggy(*) KT133A board with the 55th register set to 09 I get these results;
Athlon test program $Id: fast.c,v 1.6 2000/09/23 09:05:45 arjan Exp $ clear_page() tests clear_page function 'warm up run' took 21729 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 13341 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 13346 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 15574 cycles per page clear_page function 'faster_clear_page' took 4965 cycles per page clear_page function 'even_faster_clear' took 4884 cycles per page
copy_page() tests copy_page function 'warm up run' took 21294 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 38093 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 38270 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 21380 cycles per page copy_page function 'faster_copy' took 10775 cycles per page copy_page function 'even_faster' took 11262 cycles per page
Setting the register to 00 Athlon test program $Id: fast.c,v 1.6 2000/09/23 09:05:45 arjan Exp $ clear_page() tests clear_page function 'warm up run' took 21719 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 13392 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 13354 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 15615 cycles per page clear_page function 'faster_clear_page' took 4963 cycles per page clear_page function 'even_faster_clear' took 4886 cycles per page
copy_page() tests copy_page function 'warm up run' took 21033 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 37879 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 37938 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 21124 cycles per page copy_page function 'faster_copy' took 10717 cycles per page copy_page function 'even_faster' took 11130 cycles per page
In my view these are pretty similar.
(*) - Yes, I did report a buggy KT133A Epox 8KTA/3 board, but the board and processor croaked, and my vendor replaced them with an Epox 8KTA/3 Pro board, and I've had no problems with it so far.
Yours, -Simen -- Simen Thoresen, Beowulf-cleaner and random artist - close and personal.
Er det ikke rart? The gnu RART-project on http://valinor.dolphinics.no:1080/~simentt/rart
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |