Hi Ross,
Ross Johnson wrote:
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Heiner is on vacation this week, so, I jump in ... ;-)
Great result for older machines, which is, I assume, where any
improvement is needed most. I'm curious as to why the call overhead is
Yep, this is obviously more important for older machines.
such a large proportion of the Xeon result (37%). Were the total number
You are right, the call overhead seems to be much more expensive for the
Xeons, at least compared to the ordinary P IV. Any processor gurus out
there with some explanations?
of calls to incrementInterlockedCount() the same for both P-IV and Xeon?
It seems that Heiner forgot to attach the "main" function. The call
count was the same for all samples (if I remember correctly it was about
10.000.000).
It looks as though the Xeon either doesn't lock the buss in this test,
or it's a lot more efficient with it. I think you mentioned earlier that
It actually locks the bus in all samples, because it _is_ SMP.
this was possible.
Ross
Kay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
