[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131028162044.GA14350@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:20:45 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sebastien.dugue@...l.net,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Run checksumming in parallel accross multiple alu's
* Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> Base:
> 0.093269042 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.24% )
> Prefetch (5x64):
> 0.079440009 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.29% )
> Parallel ALU:
> 0.087666677 seconds time elapsed ( +- 4.01% )
> Prefetch + Parallel ALU:
> 0.080758702 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.34% )
>
> So we can see here that we get about a 1% speedup between the base
> and the both (Prefetch + Parallel ALU) case, with prefetch
> accounting for most of that speedup.
Hm, there's still something strange about these results. So the
range of the results is 790-930 nsecs. The noise of the measurements
is 2%-4%, i.e. 20-40 nsecs.
The prefetch-only result itself is the fastest of all -
statistically equivalent to the prefetch+parallel-ALU result, within
the noise range.
So if prefetch is enabled, turning on parallel-ALU has no measurable
effect - which is counter-intuitive. Do you have an
theory/explanation for that?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists