[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200701031853.36145.m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:53:35 +0100
From: Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@...com.net>,
Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>, s0348365@....ed.ac.uk,
76306.1226@...puserve.com, akpm@...l.org, bunk@...sta.de,
greg@...ah.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems
Hello,
> Here's an example program that you can test and time yourself.
>
> On my Core 2, I get
>
> [torvalds@...dy ~]$ gcc -DCMOV -Wall -O2 t.c
> [torvalds@...dy ~]$ time ./a.out
> 600000000
>
> real 0m0.194s
> user 0m0.192s
> sys 0m0.000s
>
> [torvalds@...dy ~]$ gcc -Wall -O2 t.c
> [torvalds@...dy ~]$ time ./a.out
> 600000000
>
> real 0m0.167s
> user 0m0.168s
> sys 0m0.000s
Test was done on my laptop with gcc 4.1.1 and CPU:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz
stepping : 9
cpu MHz : 2392.349
cache size : 512 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe cid xtpr
bogomips : 4786.36
clflush size : 64
I wrote a simple script that run each version of your code 100
times measuring the execution time. Then some simple gnuplot
magic was applied. The result is attached (png file).
- cmovne was faster with almost stable execution time (~171ms)
- je-mov was slower and execution time varies
Interpretation is up to you ;-)
--
Regards,
Mariusz Kozlowski
Download attachment "benchmark.png" of type "image/png" (6165 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists