This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Don't use SSE4_2 instructions on Intel Silvermont Micro Architecture.
- From: Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov dot dmitrieva at gmail dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ondřej Bílka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>, Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:17:39 +0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't use SSE4_2 instructions on Intel Silvermont Micro Architecture.
- References: <20130618064910 dot GA19972 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAHjhQ90Fc0kdZfQrUwLwpKbz2va4X9rzf1EkGD-s-RH-iF7guQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHjhQ92qfjdKZthqAwxCVuCnLqDr2stdEbQpne5rKhzJPeN_cQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51C23583 dot 1070307 at redhat dot com> <CAHjhQ93vWnCiVVU9MPoGptjQtn2J2PCDT2B7ZfXiKt+Cv_Rh_w at mail dot gmail dot com> <51C307A5 dot 7030608 at redhat dot com> <20130620151711 dot GA4891 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <51C317AA dot 6080502 at redhat dot com> <20130621012427 dot GA4574 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAAHN_R1HXyy0i25rtYKJ4Zox5u0R57xKbZDq=ZNf0BVm=7biMw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130621135110 dot GB7973 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAHjhQ921kXhi3hfqkHW_5pdYY2QYf6pzQ8OLondc6JJjj++4kQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51CC602F dot 1010406 at redhat dot com>
I checked glibc benchmark suite and results look good.
You probably missed my results.
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-06/msg00792.html
--
Liubov
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/27/2013 03:24 AM, Liubov Dmitrieva wrote:
>> I think for this particular patch we don't need super accurate
>> benchmarks to see that it is better because we talk not about 20-60%
>> of boost but about several times asymptotically boost as current
>> benchmarks showed. It was a server machine, nobody runs Firefox there.
>
> Agreed, but we still need some kind of reproducible result that shows
> your patch improved performance. I'm not happy with performance patches
> going into glibc without some proof that they made things better.
>
> If you can't show that with the benchmark, and have some other benchmark
> numbers, then I might be convinced, but I'd like you to update our
> benchmarking results page for 2.18 to describe what you did and what
> numbers you achieved.
>
> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/benchmarking/results_2_18
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
>