From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dxb2Q-0008CE-Tw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:48:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6R1lKPP009846; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:47:20 GMT Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [217.160.230.41]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6R1lJAb016318 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:47:19 GMT Received: from S010600c0a84e4806.gv.shawcable.net [24.68.85.55] (helo=localhost) by mrelay.perfora.net with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKyxe-1Dxb1840kN-0008Lj; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:47:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 12967 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2005 17:06:59 -0700 Received: from tuono.exile.net (HELO localhost) (192.168.42.2) by 10.0.0.2 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2005 17:06:59 -0700 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0FADA4C043; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:05:01 -0700 From: Sami Samhuri To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: x86_64 optimization patches for glibc. Message-ID: <20050727000501.GB4009@no-eff-eks.com> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org References: <42E258A7.5080501@telia.com> <200507252224.52700.luke-jr@utopios.org> <1122331103.13635.51.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> <200507261540.06591.luke-jr@utopios.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net login:facf15b0d38d92af5a91e515edd5eac9 X-Archives-Salt: 2ec20b2b-019c-4424-b43e-a3a606af8471 X-Archives-Hash: 07221dc10411185e9c4c3010c21ef605 --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * On Tue Jul-26-2005 at 09:50:00 AM -0700, Duncan said: [...] > Of course, that's just supposition, here. If those with the 1100/2200 > rates would confirm whether they are running in dual-channel memory mode, > as I suspect, and you confirm that you are running single-channel mode, as > I am, it'll pretty much confirm that supposition, however. glibc-2.3.5 (patched) gentoo-sources-2.6.12-r4 linux-headers-2.6.11-r2 2x Opteron 246 (2GHz) 2x 512M, on processor #0 (dual channel) % ./a.out 2000 5000 1048576 Memory to memory copy rate =3D 1367.611206 MBytes / sec. Block size =3D 104= 8576. % ./a.out 4000 5000 1048576 Memory to memory copy rate =3D 2822.960693 MBytes / sec. Block size =3D 104= 8576. Since only 1 processor is used in this test I'm not sure which processor speed I should use, and hence which result is accurate. In any case they take the same amount of time, ~3.7s. --=20 Sami Samhuri --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC5s+tukGyBH1UC2MRAvXOAKCq56eWPZGc/J7B2rB7j58INhSjdgCgp25c nXuiVPq2q4wgjfujwWQxzt8= =WoUs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZoaI/ZTpAVc4A5k6-- -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list