From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:36:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:36:17 -0400 Received: from mail.pha.ha-vel.cz ([195.39.72.3]:20489 "HELO mail.pha.ha-vel.cz") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:36:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:36:26 +0200 From: Vojtech Pavlik To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Dan Hollis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Athlon bug stomper. Pls apply. Message-ID: <20010919223626.B3775@suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <9oafeu$1o0$1@penguin.transmeta.com> <3BA8EA04.E55BAA02@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3BA8EA04.E55BAA02@redhat.com>; from arjanv@redhat.com on Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:55:00PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:55:00PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Dan Hollis wrote: > > > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > It is _probably_ an undocumented performance thing, and clearing that > > > bit may slow something down. But it might also change some behaviour, > > > and knowing _what_ the behaviour is might be very useful for figuring > > > out what it is that triggers the problem. > > > > AFAIK noone has even tested it yet to see what it does to performance! Eg > > it might slow down memory access so that athlon-optimized memcopy is now > > slower than non-athlon-optimized memcopy. And if it turns out to be the > > case, we might as well just use the non-athlon-optimized memcopy instead > > of twiddling undocumented northbridge bits... > > Ok but that part is simple: > > run > > http://www.fenrus.demon.nl/athlon.c Here we go, a TBird 1.1G with KT133 (non-A), normally working with value 89 in reg 55, not exhibiting the bug under any setting. with 89 (working, default): Athlon test program $Id: fast.c,v 1.6 2000/09/23 09:05:45 arjan Exp $ clear_page() tests clear_page function 'warm up run' took 20842 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 13737 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 14071 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 13269 cycles per page clear_page function 'faster_clear_page' took 5485 cycles per page clear_page function 'even_faster_clear' took 5611 cycles per page copy_page() tests copy_page function 'warm up run' took 20049 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 29783 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 29679 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 20173 cycles per page copy_page function 'faster_copy' took 12641 cycles per page copy_page function 'even_faster' took 12443 cycles per page with 09 (working, set using "setpci -d 1106:0305 55=09"): Athlon test program $Id: fast.c,v 1.6 2000/09/23 09:05:45 arjan Exp $ clear_page() tests clear_page function 'warm up run' took 20763 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 13754 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 13771 cycles per page clear_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 13340 cycles per page clear_page function 'faster_clear_page' took 5578 cycles per page clear_page function 'even_faster_clear' took 5774 cycles per page copy_page() tests copy_page function 'warm up run' took 20415 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 29629 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 29509 cycles per page copy_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 20287 cycles per page copy_page function 'faster_copy' took 12626 cycles per page copy_page function 'even_faster' took 12587 cycles per page So there is no noticeable difference. The values for 'even_faster' vary between 10000 and 13000 between different runs with either setting of register 55. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs