On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:32:50PM -, David Laight wrote:
> > > I'm not sure, whats the typical capacity for the branch predictors
> > > ability to remember code paths?
> ...
> >
> > For such simple single-target branches it goes near or over a thousand for
> > recent Intel and AMD microarchit
* David Laight wrote:
> > > I'm not sure, whats the typical capacity for the branch predictors
> > > ability to remember code paths?
> ...
> >
> > For such simple single-target branches it goes near or over a thousand
> > for recent Intel and AMD microarchitectures. Thousands for really
> >
> > I'm not sure, whats the typical capacity for the branch predictors
> > ability to remember code paths?
...
>
> For such simple single-target branches it goes near or over a thousand for
> recent Intel and AMD microarchitectures. Thousands for really recent CPUs.
IIRC the x86 can also correctl
* Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:09:51AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > > Sure, I modified the code so that we only prefetched 2 cache lines ahead,
> > > but
> > > only if the overall length of the input buffer is more than 2 cache lines.
> > > Below are the results (all counts
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:09:51AM -, David Laight wrote:
> > Sure, I modified the code so that we only prefetched 2 cache lines ahead,
> > but
> > only if the overall length of the input buffer is more than 2 cache lines.
> > Below are the results (all counts are the average of 100 iterat
> Sure, I modified the code so that we only prefetched 2 cache lines ahead, but
> only if the overall length of the input buffer is more than 2 cache lines.
> Below are the results (all counts are the average of 100 iterations of the
> csum operation, as previous tests were, I just omitted that
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:38:01PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 14:50 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:33:35AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:12 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> []
> > > > So, the numbers are correct now that I retur
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 14:50 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:33:35AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:12 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
[]
> > > So, the numbers are correct now that I returned my hardware to its
> > > previous
> > > interrupt affinity state,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:33:35AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:12 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:42:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Hi again Neil.
> > >
> > > Forwarding on to netdev with a concern as to how often
> > > do_csum is used via cs
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:12 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:42:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Hi again Neil.
> >
> > Forwarding on to netdev with a concern as to how often
> > do_csum is used via csum_partial for very short headers
> > and what impact any prefetch would
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:42:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> Hi again Neil.
>
> Forwarding on to netdev with a concern as to how often
> do_csum is used via csum_partial for very short headers
> and what impact any prefetch would have there.
>
> Also, what changed in your test environment?
>
>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:42:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> Hi again Neil.
>
> Forwarding on to netdev with a concern as to how often
> do_csum is used via csum_partial for very short headers
> and what impact any prefetch would have there.
>
> Also, what changed in your test environment?
>
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
