linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roger Larsson <roger.larsson@norran.net>
To: David Jander <david.jander@protonic.nl>
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6 on MPC8xx performance trouble...
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:44:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200510282044.43523.roger.larsson@norran.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200510281257.22650.david.jander@protonic.nl>

On Friday 28 October 2005 12.57, David Jander wrote:
> They are just integers with fixed start values. These are in the loop, so
> it's not an empty loop and hopefully the compiler won't out-optimize it so
> easily (that is of course without specifying any optimization flags).
> Please don't tell me it's a lousy benchmark, because I already know that!
> Be it as lousy as it is, I shouldn't get _those_ results IMHO.
>
> I have downloaded nbench (hopefully a more serious benchmark for raw
> computing power), and the results are as follows (I deliberately excluded
> tests that don't make sense (ie. use FP)):
>
> Kernel 2.4.25:
>
> TEST                : Iterations/sec.  : Old Index   : New Index
>
>                     :                  : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
>
> --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
> NUMERIC SORT        :          30.438  :       0.78  :       0.26
> STRING SORT         :          1.5842  :       0.71  :       0.11
> BITFIELD            :      7.9506e+06  :       1.36  :       0.28
> FP EMULATION        :           3.258  :       1.56  :       0.36
> IDEA                :          108.89  :       1.67  :       0.49
>
> Kernel 2.6.14-r5:
>
> TEST                : Iterations/sec.  : Old Index   : New Index
>
>                     :                  : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
>
> --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
> NUMERIC SORT        :          21.042  :       0.54  :       0.18
> STRING SORT         :         0.88215  :       0.39  :       0.06
> BITFIELD            :      6.0979e+06  :       1.05  :       0.22
> FP EMULATION        :          1.6453  :       0.79  :       0.18
> IDEA                :          110.25  :       1.69  :       0.50
>
>

What about the Pentium 90 and AMD K6? Are those values actual measured
results? By you? If not why do THEY differ between the kernel versions?

Is this a MPC8xx problem - can it be verified on a x86?

/RogerL

  reply	other threads:[~2005-10-28 18:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-28  6:57 Kernel 2.6 on MPC8xx performance trouble David Jander
2005-10-28  9:36 ` Roger Larsson
2005-10-28 10:57   ` David Jander
2005-10-28 18:44     ` Roger Larsson [this message]
2005-10-28 20:37     ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-10-31  9:31       ` David Jander
2005-10-28 15:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-10-31  8:21   ` David Jander
2005-10-31 12:58     ` Mark Chambers
2005-10-31 13:08       ` David Jander
2005-10-31 15:29         ` David Jander

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200510282044.43523.roger.larsson@norran.net \
    --to=roger.larsson@norran.net \
    --cc=david.jander@protonic.nl \
    --cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).