Thanks Andreas. I am going to push the patch soon.
--
Nilay
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013, Andreas Hansson wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
