Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.47{-mm1} with contest

[Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:21:47AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

 > > Good eyes. But.. this also applies to 2.4 (which should also then
 > > get faster). So the gap between 2.4 & 2.5 must be somewhere else ?
 > 
 > But 2.4 already inlines the usercopy functions.   With this benchmark,
 > the cost of the function call is visible.   Same with the dir_rtn_1
 > test - it is performing zillions of 3, 7, 10-byte copies into userspace.

But the reduction of number of copy_*_user's applies to 2.4 too right ?

 > We'd buy a bit by arranging for the in-kernel copy of the fp state
 > to have the same layout as the hardware.  That way it can be done in
 > a single big, fast, well-aligned slurp.  But for some reason that code has
 > to convert into and out of a different representation.

Possibly hardware restrictions, I'm unfamiliar with how this voodoo works.

 > But the real low-hanging fruit here is the observation that the
 > test application doesn't use floating point!!!

Interesting point. What was the test app ? contest ?
(I missed the beginning of this thread).

 > Maybe we need to take an fp trap now and then to "poll" the application
 > to see if it is still using float.

Neat idea. Bonus points for making it work 8-)

		Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs