On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Dennis Luehring <dl.so...@gmx.net> wrote: > Am 29.07.2015 um 11:17 schrieb Karel Gardas: >> >> If >> anybody is interested I can dig those old emails. > > > would be nice
Here is speed comparison: https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/02/msg00001.html but whole thread started in january here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2015/01/msg00000.html Mark then asked for profiles, I see I send them privately due to attachements, the email is: off-list as I'm attaching files which may be too bit for list. Also I'm not sure if this is still relevant to debian-sparc@ Anyway, difference in IO is negligible. When I compile on SPARC on tmpfs it was still 6m40s. On SPARC it's using -drive while on AArch64 it uses all the virtio optimization probably. Anyway, with gprof you've hit the point. Attached two files (text output from gprof). One shows profiler as a reference, just boot/login/su root/poweroff/kill qemu and another is the same but ~5 hours of compilation of nbench2 in shell loop. reference shows: % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name 42.9 145.84 145.84 cpu_sparc_exec [1] 7.8 172.44 26.60 tcg_optimize [2] 4.4 187.38 14.94 tcg_reg_alloc_op [3] 4.4 202.20 14.82 get_physical_address_data [4] 3.8 215.26 13.06 tcg_liveness_analysis [5] while compile loop shows: % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name 21.2 1008.09 1008.09 tlb_flush_page [1] 15.2 1731.09 723.00 cpu_sparc_exec [2] 13.6 2374.79 643.70 tb_flush_jmp_cache [3] 9.5 2823.86 449.07 tcg_optimize [4] 4.2 3024.26 200.40 tcg_liveness_analysis [5] that's indeed a difference. -- I assume cpu_sparc_exec is what does actual work here...
