From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baldric (baldric.uwo.ca [129.100.10.225]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED74482D for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:08:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from carlos by baldric with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19my7w-0001TO-00 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:05:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:05:32 -0400 From: Carlos O'Donell To: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] itlb miss handler optimizations! Message-ID: <20030813160532.GG17512@systemhalted> References: <20030812160612.GF20514@dsl2.external.hp.com> <3F28D76600003759@ocpmta4.freegates.net> <20030813155605.GF17512@systemhalted> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20030813155605.GF17512@systemhalted> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > Thanks for that run Joel, I'll take a look at the numbers in a few > minutes. Adding to that here is the lmbench results (urls) for both > the non-optimized and optimized cases of the itlb fault handler. I forgot that lamont noticed an interlocked zdep in the PA11 common case and we reorderd the insn sequence. Perhaps this helped the numbers a bit. I have to run the same lmbench tests on a 64-bit box first to compare. c.