Searched hist:"800 eb014" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/tools/perf/bench/ |
| H A D | mem-memcpy-x86-64-asm-def.h | 800eb014 Wed Jan 18 07:28:56 CST 2012 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> perf bench: Also allow measuring alternative memcpy implementations
Intended to be able to support the current selection of the preferred
memcpy() implementation, this patch adds the ability to also measure the
two alternative implementations, again by way of using some
pre-processsor replacement.
While on my Westmere system this proves that the movsb based variant is
worse than the movsq based one (since the ERMS feature isn't there), it
also shows that here for the default as well as small sizes the unrolled
variant outperforms the movsq one.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4F16D728020000780006D732@nat28.tlf.novell.com
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
800eb014 Wed Jan 18 07:28:56 CST 2012 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> perf bench: Also allow measuring alternative memcpy implementations
Intended to be able to support the current selection of the preferred
memcpy() implementation, this patch adds the ability to also measure the
two alternative implementations, again by way of using some
pre-processsor replacement.
While on my Westmere system this proves that the movsb based variant is
worse than the movsq based one (since the ERMS feature isn't there), it
also shows that here for the default as well as small sizes the unrolled
variant outperforms the movsq one.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4F16D728020000780006D732@nat28.tlf.novell.com
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | mem-memcpy-x86-64-asm.S | 800eb014 Wed Jan 18 07:28:56 CST 2012 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> perf bench: Also allow measuring alternative memcpy implementations
Intended to be able to support the current selection of the preferred
memcpy() implementation, this patch adds the ability to also measure the
two alternative implementations, again by way of using some
pre-processsor replacement.
While on my Westmere system this proves that the movsb based variant is
worse than the movsq based one (since the ERMS feature isn't there), it
also shows that here for the default as well as small sizes the unrolled
variant outperforms the movsq one.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4F16D728020000780006D732@nat28.tlf.novell.com
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
800eb014 Wed Jan 18 07:28:56 CST 2012 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> perf bench: Also allow measuring alternative memcpy implementations
Intended to be able to support the current selection of the preferred
memcpy() implementation, this patch adds the ability to also measure the
two alternative implementations, again by way of using some
pre-processsor replacement.
While on my Westmere system this proves that the movsb based variant is
worse than the movsq based one (since the ERMS feature isn't there), it
also shows that here for the default as well as small sizes the unrolled
variant outperforms the movsq one.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4F16D728020000780006D732@nat28.tlf.novell.com
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|