Ahmed Karaman <ahmedkhaledkara...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, > > The third report of the TCG Continuous Benchmarking series utilizes > the tools presented in the previous report for comparing the > performance of 17 different targets across two versions of QEMU. The > two versions addressed are 5.0 and 5.1-pre-soft-freeze (current state > of QEMU). > > After summarizing the results, the report utilizes the KCachegrind > tool and dives into the analysis of why all three PowerPC targets > (ppc, ppc64, ppc64le) had a performance degradation between the two > QEMU versions. It's an interesting degradation especially as you would think that a change in the softfloat implementation should hit everyone in the same way. We actually have a tool for benchmarking the softfloat implementation itself called fp-bench. You can find it in tests/fp. I would be curious to see if you saw a drop in performance in the following: ./fp-bench -p double -o cmp > > Report link: > https://ahmedkrmn.github.io/TCG-Continuous-Benchmarking/QEMU-5.0-and-5.1-pre-soft-freeze-Dissect-Comparison/ If you identify a drop in performance due to a commit linking to it from the report wouldn't be a bad idea so those that want to quickly replicate the test can do before/after runs. > > Previous reports: > Report 1 - Measuring Basic Performance Metrics of QEMU: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg06692.html > Report 2 - Dissecting QEMU Into Three Main Parts: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg09441.html > > Best regards, > Ahmed Karaman -- Alex Bennée
