| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
The walk benchmarks don't measure anything useful - memory is not initialized
properly so doing a single walk in 32MB just measures reading the 4KB zero
page for reads and clear_page overhead for writes. The memset variants don't
even manage to do a walk in the 32MB region due to using incorrect pointer
increments... Neither is it clear why it is walking backwards since this
won't confuse modern prefetchers. If you fix the benchmark and print the
bandwidth, the results are identical for all sizes larger than ~1KB since it
is just testing memory bandwidth of a single 32MB block. This case is already
tested by the large benchmark, so overall it doesn't seem useful to keep these.
Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove one of 2 identical loops in bench-bzero-walk.c.
Reviewed-by: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@sourceware.org>
|
|
Small sizes (<= 64) represent large portion of memset usages with zero
value. Add sizes (<= 64) to bench-bzero-walk.c to cover small sizes.
Reviewed-by: Sunil K Pandey <skpgkp2@gmail.com>
|
|
memset with zero as the value to set is by far the majority value (99%+
for Python3 and GCC). Add bench-memset-zero-large.c,
bench-memset-zero-walk.c and bench-memset-zero.c to measure memset
implementations for zeroing.
Reviewed-by: Sunil K Pandey <skpgkp2@gmail.com>
|
|
Add bench-bzero-large.c, bench-bzero-walk.c and bench-bzero.c.
|
