Hi,
For my rough v8mt prototype, one thread and concatenated v8 benchmarks
it looks like following:
12 seconds for all:
Richards: 1178
DeltaBlue: 1212
Crypto: 789
RayTrace: 1732
EarleyBoyer: 1994
RegExp: 213
Splay: 2073
Score: 1081

for original version:
11 seconds for all:
Richards: 1176
DeltaBlue: 1251
Crypto: 788
RayTrace: 1646
EarleyBoyer: 2374
RegExp: 371
Splay: 1498
Score: 1141

Back to investigating such a difference for last benchmarks :)
Best, Maxim Mossienko

On 17 сен, 23:16, Stephen Clibbery <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I'm beginning to see just how much work it would
> be. A simple global search for static variables just doesn't get close
> to the amount of work really involved. There's a lot of data not
> explicitly marked static (including, as you say, variables defined in
> macros). There's probably weeks if not months of work here.
>
> I also think it will be hard to accurately estimate the performance
> impact of TLS without actually doing all the work, because until all
> the modules are converted, we probably won't know exactly which call
> sites would need to access the TLS data. A starting point might be a
> throwaway prototype that just compares direct static data access to
> TLS access. It would be hard to simulate appropriate cache-usage
> patterns in such a test though. I'm also not sure exactly how to read
> the results: without knowing the potential call-sites in the V8 code,
> it would be difficult to say exactly how fast one TLS access would
> need to be compared to the existing static access. Then there's the
> question of whether all platforms would have similarly fast TLS
> access.
>
> Anyway, this (V8 with this patch) would still be my preferred solution
> overall, but it's probably not practical for me to put this amount of
> work in at this time :-(
>
> Best Regards,
> Steve
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
v8-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to