Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:48:19 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.org, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely5.cicely.de> Subject: Re: -current failing on PC164 Message-ID: <14963.38369.912484.545380@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010127174839.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <14963.12976.121070.21427@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <XFMail.010127174839.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin writes: > > On 27-Jan-01 Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > FWIW, the perf. decrease you noticed is probably directly related to > > the mutex stuff no longer being inlined -- function calls are pretty > > expensive on alpha. I saw a huge perf. increase when we inlined spl's > > last year. > > Right now the mutex API is being somewhat overhauled. When it is done, we may > move back to using inlining. If it is a big performance boost on the alpha, > then we will definitely inline on at least the alpha. For x86, function calls > are (relatively) cheap, so we weren't as worried about it. I am not as aware > however when it comes to alpha specifics. Please feel free to knock me upside > the head when we do something stupid. Will do. I realize that perf. is not the goal right now, o/w I'd have been screaming my head off long ago ;) Once perf. does become an issue, we'll have to get you using Iprobe. Its one hell of a lot better than gprof (sampling with 5% overhead, rather than doctoring each function call with 50% overhead..). Cheers, Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14963.38369.912484.545380>