From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37306) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpSsH-0005YE-1F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:23:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpSsC-0007aS-O7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:23:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:57:29 +1000 From: David Gibson Message-ID: <20160929035729.GK8390@umbus.fritz.box> References: <1475040687-27523-1-git-send-email-nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1475040687-27523-5-git-send-email-nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160929013841.GB8390@umbus.fritz.box> <87eg43v0dl.fsf@abhimanyu.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <634bfa4d-5d31-2895-c722-f01231433544@twiddle.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+RZeZVNR8VILNfK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <634bfa4d-5d31-2895-c722-f01231433544@twiddle.net> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 4/9] target-ppc: improve lxvw4x implementation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: Nikunj A Dadhania , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org --x+RZeZVNR8VILNfK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/28/2016 08:41 PM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: > > Without patch: > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > [tcg_test]$ time ../qemu/ppc64le-linux-user/qemu-ppc64le -cpu POWER9 l= e_lxvw4x >/dev/null > > real 0m2.812s > > user 0m2.792s > > sys 0m0.020s > > [tcg_test]$ > >=20 > > With patch: > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > [tcg_test]$ time ../qemu/ppc64le-linux-user/qemu-ppc64le -cpu POWER9 l= e_lxvw4x >/dev/null > > real 0m2.801s > > user 0m2.783s > > sys 0m0.018s > > [tcg_test]$ > >=20 > > Not much perceivable difference, is there a better way to benchmark? >=20 > There should be more of a difference for softmmu, since the tlb lookup for > the memory is more expensive. Good point. Oh.. also, I'd remove the prints from the benchmark for this purpose. The time involved in the syscalls and whatnot for the print will just add noise to the measurement (sending to /dev/null reduces the impact, but it's probably still significant compared to a simple math operation). --=20 David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --x+RZeZVNR8VILNfK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX7JEpAAoJEGw4ysog2bOSVnQP/1e3koamvHeidQC/srM2kH1S vIN8JlYzsjvrfTPILCRqTVrJglHgpPZjJayhnz0k/6cUJixavw6xjqZoW1F23nJh cpphIMQxouizyEGd4X90Rtpsxe1hbMeLD0iXc6TIyhWirWlmfkOilwQ03Hp7evWo gTvU2xeTY5qW7D+xgpc0q5Rk79kgYPJRAnZknBEjqimLvNkepP1tUPqJnnDR5sNp q9t9sPJ2/mvRABNHpv/2E/WvpOcb82p/90bjKChh1qhs858QPe244ohZ0xnnXtI6 RUdZ/yhd9aneTHr8COSrIvLldqfSx2o5Rt1aOeZK218ycrd5IzSQk1nYX3E8DlzS WQrPDi96HMb2HH5I5aNo4giphCT1l8w9grkAddpmD6BTAwu7EofyTW7WfdWsFNSv WW8zJRoR5nhMMIi22MJ9owaPfSCI9FEIrTM4sGpY7vQfpb5520LwQsCTbiTHzjC4 YT8ypBfdfmw7CctWihnkKq6FVQkhG+DODJ1MY0qiMQabPg1Hrhw3HF75MCCM09u8 LN9AKeqSdIZkCaq08zsEttNRrJi5D87jdslWWtqRNKZEGXetlwhXZfctDIIW9iSo UxtPrBLYzXofhRDqclJx3IgJRrMg9nuMfW3zpkCQnSomznHukKcia/RK0A41Vj6Z qyt1GC4p7iY6mxR7WjnB =Zis6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+RZeZVNR8VILNfK--