> Let's see, if I'm reading the log file correctly, the average values of
> each test run differ by ~ 0.1 seconds tops. > > For example, i7-3770K generic build gives on average 69.41404 while > the more optimized version 69.33554. The diff between the two is even > less than 0.1 second. The other two machines' diff is a bit higher. And > from looking at your graphs, this is all eaten up by stddev so I'd say > there aren't any improvements from using a different uarch target - just > noise. AFAICT, at least. While I agree that the differences as small - on the order of ms - they are not insignificant nor are they in the noise of the measurements. 1) All the assumptions for ANOVA are met: *Data are normally distributed as show in the normal quantile plots. *The population variances are fairly equal (Levene and Barlett tests). 2) The ANOVA plots clearly show significance. *Pair-wise analysis by Tukey-Kramer shows significance at the 0.05 level for all CPUs compared. Below are the differences in median values: core2 +87.5 ms corei7-avx +79.7 ms core-avx-i+257.2 ms > In any case, these results are too marginal to warrant any code change > since they're basically disappearing in noise. Currently, the 'core2' optimization is included in as an option for a CPU Family. In the case of core-avx-i, I am showing an improvement of ~3x over that. And in the corei7-avx case, the improvement is approximately equal to it. I don't understand why these wouldn't be considered value-added since they preform at least as good as the option already included. Thank you for the consideration and suggestions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/