From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11318 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2013 16:03:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 11309 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2013 16:03:30 -0000 Received: from multi.imgtec.com (HELO multi.imgtec.com) (194.200.65.239) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:03:30 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,NO_RECEIVED,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: multi.imgtec.com Message-ID: <1378483403.5770.307.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Subject: Re: [patch, mips] Improved memset for MIPS From: Steve Ellcey To: Carlos O'Donell CC: Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:03:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <522957A4.2030400@redhat.com> References: <93a232b5-9d0b-4a27-bbb5-16e3ae7c4b89@BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org> <522957A4.2030400@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SEF-Processed: 7_3_0_01192__2013_09_06_17_03_26 X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 00:18 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Two things really: > > (a) Testing details? > > Could you please elaborate more on "some standalone performance > measurements?" > > What specific benchmarks did you run? Basically, I just wrote and used a test program that does a bunch of memset's. Nothing fancy or very intricate. > What does the glibc microbenchmark show about your changes? Do they > show a benefit? I didn't try this, but I can. Is there anything on the glibc web page about how to run this benchmark? Does it happen as part of the standard 'make check'? > > Steve, I trust your experience with MIPS, but I'd like to see all > of us drive a little more detail into these performance related > patches. I'm also curious if the microbenchmark shows a performance > progression. The glibc community is trying hard to add some objectivity > to our performance measurements, prevent performance regressions, and > use the tests to experiment with new implementations. That sounds reasonable. I just need a bit of help on where this is and how to run it. > (b) the code formatting isn't in line with the project requirements. I'll fix these up and resubmit when I have the changes (and some more performance data). Steve Ellcey sellcey@mips.com