On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 04:59:41AM -0800, John wrote:
> My only confusion is why some of these are already included in the
> linux kernel source today, for example CORE2. As I stated in my
> previous email, the two 'new' ones I tested preform as-good-as or
> better-than the CORE2 which is already
> Oh, maybe I wasn't clear - I wasn't talking about statistical
> significance but rather about practical significance.
OK. I will not argue with that :)
> A minuscule speedup (a lot less than 1%) showing only in a *single*
> workload so far and relevant only for a *very* *small* number of linu
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 04:08:55AM -0800, John wrote:
> 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.
Oh, maybe I wasn't clear - I wasn't talking about statistical
significance but rather about pract
> 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
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 04:13:59AM -0800, John wrote:
> I tested the attached patch written by André Ramnitz using three
> different machines running a generic x86-64 kernel and an otherwise
> identical kernel running with the optimized gcc options.
>
> Conclusion: There are small but real speed i
Please cc me on replies as I am not a regular subscriber to lkml. Thank you.
I tested the attached patch written by André Ramnitz using three different
machines running a generic x86-64 kernel and an otherwise identical kernel
running with the optimized gcc options.
Conclusion: There are sm
6 matches
Mail list logo
