From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Walberg Subject: Re: CPU tests Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:28:08 -0600 Message-ID: <20060331142808.GH15740@mindspring.com> References: <442D29B0.6020806@tid.es> Reply-To: Tim Walberg Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <442D29B0.6020806@tid.es> Sender: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Miguel =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gonz=E1lez_Casta=F1os?= Cc: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org On 03/31/2006 15:08 +0200, Miguel Gonz=E1lez Casta=F1os wrote: >> Dear all, >>=09 >> I am trying to launch CPU tests on a Pentium IV Prescott 3.0 Ghz wi= th=20 >> 4Gb of RAM. I have tried some tests from distributed.net and everyth= ing=20 >> seems to be ok, although with the test attached in the email (sorry = for=20 >> the size of the mail), I am experiencing some problems. As you can s= ee=20 >> with the static flag the number generation is faster than without th= at=20 That part is not surprising once you understand the dynamic linking mechanism - it adds a small amount of overhead to every function call into the library, because each function call is essentially an indirect call. That said, the amount of overhead you're seeing does seem a bit higher than I would expect (and the sqrt() case is possibly because the compiler converts the sqrt() call into a fsqrt instruction in both cases because of the -O3 - there is no instruction set equivalent for the rand(), random() and log() cases). tw --=20 twalberg@mindspring.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html