From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53211)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1ZSoXx-0000e9-Lz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:48:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1ZSoXs-0000g5-Ma
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:48:01 -0400
Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]:36480)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1ZSoXs-0000g0-JF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:47:56 -0400
Received: by qgeb6 with SMTP id b6so49163062qge.3
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
References: <55B9DD60.8020801@gmx.net> <20150730085500.GV11361@aurel32.net>
	<20150730155003.GE30591@aurel32.net>
	<CACXAS8ABo2yCVL9Hk9yoyY1wvF4X1Oq4vFs87gQyRjH59Yi1Lg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150731154323.GD23508@aurel32.net>
	<CACXAS8CLVt_0rQCLWmYp=YhL1PJyVLGAxyvQB27Cm6rM+MTGWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150803091716.GF30591@aurel32.net>
	<CACXAS8Dv410OJn4tQ14hLOsR-TjHCMQXmTMU8Dk_XT1saPQz9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D37189.3010809@twiddle.net>
	<CACXAS8CcN9bz8GBtKyoK+FH29qpRm1XeiGf7apYTBfWYV4evKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150819110010.GJ23508@aurel32.net>
	<CACXAS8C82pZws_LYanyEa4YVZdkk717imyRcmCNfvv3uDivr0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D60C1B.9010502@twiddle.net> <55D6A9DF.5070506@gmx.net>
	<55D6BC00.50200@twiddle.net> <55D6BFAD.4080501@gmx.net>
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Message-ID: <55D74828.6050209@twiddle.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:47:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55D6BFAD.4080501@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Debian 7.8.0 SPARC64 on qemu - anything i can do
 to speedup the emulation?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Dennis Luehring <dl.soluz@gmx.net>, Artyom Tarasenko <atar4qemu@gmail.com>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 08/20/2015 11:05 PM, Dennis Luehring wrote:
>> > g++ src/pugixml.cpp -g -Wall -Wextra -Werror -pedantic -std=c++0x -c -MMD -MP
>> >
>> > tcg-indirect: ~2:46.5
>> > qemu.org-git: ~2:51.2 (worst result)
>> > without-optimization: ~2:14.1 (best result)
>>
>> No compiler optimization?  I wouldn't expect there to be much for tcg to
>> optimize there -- dropping values to memory all the time doesn't leave much.
> 
> 
> without-optimization means qemu.org-git release build + undefine
> USE_TCG_OPTIMIZATIONS in tcg/tcg.c
> or what compiler do you mean?

The one for compiling the benchmark: g++ -O2.

>> These results are weird.  Unoptimized less than half the speed of mainline?
>> Improving optimization (with no extra work, mind) brings the results back down?
> 
> 
> yep they are - it seems that the assumption of the involved developers
> where speed can be improved / or slowbess comes from is not correct
> how are SPARC64 benchmarks done usually?

*shrug* No different than any other...


r~