From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28402 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2013 17:12:30 -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 28383 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2013 17:12:29 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:12:29 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r86HCP7Q021119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:12:25 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.113] (ovpn-113-113.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.113]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r86HCOlV013439; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:12:25 -0400 Message-ID: <522A0CF8.8040008@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:12:00 -0000 From: "Carlos O'Donell" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Ellcey CC: libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch, mips] Improved memset for MIPS References: <93a232b5-9d0b-4a27-bbb5-16e3ae7c4b89@BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org> <522957A4.2030400@redhat.com> <1378483403.5770.307.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> In-Reply-To: <1378483403.5770.307.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 On 09/06/2013 12:03 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > 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. Are you able to post this test program for posterity along with your patches? >> 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'? Just run `make bench', wait a while, and compare results before and after. Look at bench/README for more details. >> >> 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. My pleasure. Ask if you get stuck. >> (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). Thanks for being accommodating. Cheers, Carlos.