Hi Nilay, Thanks for your patience. Here is the verdict after averaging over two days both with and without your patch. I have compared the host_seconds with and without your patch for all the regressions, and here list those that require at least 10 seconds to run, and change more than 10%. For each of the included benchmarks I have printed the name, the ratio of before/after, and the absolute host_seconds before after. Not a single o3 run pops up, and no switcheroos. Instead it is the simple CPUs that stand out.
X86 seems to be ~15% slower, along with SPARC, and ARM ~15% faster (any idea why?). I don??t think the differences are significant enough to hold off on the patch. Thanks, Andreas /X86/tests/opt/long/se/60.bzip2/x86/linux/simple-atomic 0.846341761811 2144.52 2533.87 /X86/tests/opt/long/se/60.bzip2/x86/linux/simple-timing 0.880894867374 3821.78 4338.52 /X86/tests/opt/long/se/20.parser/x86/linux/simple-atomic 0.85584925128 630.41 736.59 /X86/tests/opt/long/se/20.parser/x86/linux/simple-timing 0.898765239746 1153.7 1283.65 /X86/tests/opt/long/se/10.mcf/x86/linux/simple-atomic 0.86398415084 126.47 146.38 /X86/tests/opt/long/se/10.mcf/x86/linux/simple-timing 0.841928537538 230.68 273.99 /X86/tests/opt/long/se/70.twolf/x86/linux/simple-atomic 0.851222651223 99.21 116.55 /X86/tests/opt/long/se/70.twolf/x86/linux/simple-timing 0.889776357827 172.67 194.06 /ARM/tests/opt/long/se/60.bzip2/arm/linux/simple-timing 1.12286217903 1649.9 1469.37 /ARM/tests/opt/quick/fs/10.linux-boot/arm/linux/realview-simple-atomic-dual 1.1978988517 49.03 40.93 /ARM/tests/opt/quick/fs/10.linux-boot/arm/linux/realview-switcheroo-atomic 1.17865429234 55.88 47.41 /ARM/tests/opt/quick/fs/10.linux-boot/arm/linux/realview-simple-atomic 1.17839607201 50.4 42.77 /SPARC/tests/opt/long/se/10.mcf/sparc/linux/simple-atomic 0.770113942768 88.54 114.97 /SPARC/tests/opt/long/se/10.mcf/sparc/linux/simple-timing 0.866449660737 188.99 218.12 /SPARC/tests/opt/long/se/70.twolf/sparc/linux/simple-atomic 0.766434648105 69.37 90.51 /SPARC/tests/opt/long/se/70.twolf/sparc/linux/simple-timing 0.799702080119 150.32 187.97 /SPARC/tests/opt/long/se/50.vortex/sparc/linux/simple-atomic 0.763137377203 48.94 64.13 /SPARC/tests/opt/long/se/50.vortex/sparc/linux/simple-timing 0.845123980036 106.68 126.23 On 20/11/2013 07:35, "Nilay Vaish" <[email protected]> wrote: >OK. > >On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Andreas Hansson wrote: > >> Hi Nilay, >> >> I hate to be a pain, but I??m still wondering what caused the 15-20% slow >> down for the regressions on our side. Could you hold off until Monday >>next >> week? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andreas >> >> On 20/11/2013 05:18, "Nilay Vaish" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I had another run with the multithread patch applied and the time >>> required >>> remains about the same. Unless anyone objects, I'll commit the patch >>> tomorrow. >>> >>> -- >>> Nilay -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
