From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27153 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2012 17:28:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 27141 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2012 17:28:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,TW_CP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:28:26 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1T8wvJ-0000ea-Mx from Carlos_ODonell@mentor.com ; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:28:25 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:28:25 -0700 Received: from [172.30.7.184] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:28:24 -0700 Message-ID: <50463A37.306@mentor.com> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:28:00 -0000 From: Carlos O'Donell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Ellcey CC: Andrew T Pinski , Maxim Kuvyrkov , "Joseph S. Myers" , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize MIPS memcpy References: <5044746c.23eb440a.75e2.618f@mx.google.com> <1346771341.14333.20.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <50461AD3.50307@mentor.com> <1346778160.14333.36.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> In-Reply-To: <1346778160.14333.36.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On 9/4/2012 1:02 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > >> Exactly what benchmarks did you run to verify the performance gains? >> >> The one thing I'd like to continue seeing is strong rationalization for >> performance patches such that we have reproducible data in the event that >> someone else comes along and wants to make a change. >> >> For example see: >> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/benchmarking/results_2_17 >> >> and: >> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/benchmarking/benchmarks >> >> Cheers, >> Carlos. > > We had a few tests around here that I used and I wrote one of my own > too. I have attached my test, when using it with -UVERIFY and testing > on a 74K system I got the following timings (32 bits, little-endian): > > The FSF memcpy: 3m9.34s > Maxim's memcpy: 2m0.41s > My memcpy: 1m22.20s > > If there are any official or recommended memcpy benchmarks I'd be happy > to try them as well. There are none, but that's the kind of consensus we're trying to build by documenting exactly which tests were used to benchmark which functions. Thanks for posting the test sources! Cheers, Carlos. -- Carlos O'Donell Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery carlos_odonell@mentor.com carlos@codesourcery.com +1 (613) 963 1026