From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 19 17:46:49 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E08437B401; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (snark.ratmir.ru [213.24.248.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D6443FBD; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 17:46:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (freebsd@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3K0kfC2052304; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 04:46:42 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from freebsd@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3K0kdjN052299; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 04:46:39 +0400 (MSD) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 04:46:39 +0400 From: Alex Semenyaka To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030420004639.GA52081@snark.ratmir.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: tjr@@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org, ru@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:46:50 -0000 Hi, I've heard a lot of recommendation about where I shoud show my patch and the results of performance changes because of it. So I gathered all advices into To: and CC: fields. Sorry, if there are unnecessary addresses (which then?). Also as I was told the final patch I've send as the PR. Brief description what was done: I've chanched the arithmitics in the /bin/= sh =66rom 32 bits to 64 bits. There are some doubts that it conforms to the standards: it does, I have send a quotations to -standards, there were no objections. Couple of people advuces me to use intmax_t and %jd - I've rewr= itten the patch, now there is those species instead of long long and %qd. The last question was performance, I will show the results of measurements below. The patch can be found in the attach to this message or in the PR bin/51171. Also I've added the overflow control to the addition, substraction and multiplication. There is pretty small overhead (see data below) so I decided it harmless. First, here is the processor description in the box I've run the tests. CPU: Intel Pentium III (1002.28-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin =3D "GenuineIntel" Id =3D 0x68a Stepping =3D 10 Features=3D0x387f9ff real memory =3D 268435456 (262144K bytes) avail memory =3D 256475136 (250464K bytes) The tests was a set of 12 scripts with the following structure: for x in `jot 300000` do done and operations were "" (just no operation, empty loop), i=3D$(($i+1)), i=3D$(($i+$m)) (here is _two_ variables), i=3D$(($i*1)), i=3D$(($i*$m)), i= =3D$(($i/1)), i=3D$(($i/$m)), i=3D$(($i<<1)), i=3D$(($i<<$m)), i=3D$(($i||1)), i=3D$(($i|= |$m)), i=3D$((~$i)). In the tests with two variables second one ($m) was always eq= ual to 1. Starting value of $i was also 1.` I've run those twelve scripts first with the 64-bit shell without overflow control and compared with 32-bit shell: Test Time Difference Arith. No Old New Abs %% operation ----+----------------+-------------------------------- 0 1.35 1.36 0.04 0.99% no op 1 5.12 5.36 0.72 4.69% i=3D$(($i+1)) 2 5.17 5.43 0.78 5.03% i=3D$(($i+$a)) 3 4.39 4.57 0.55 4.18% i=3D$(($i*1)) 4 4.43 4.64 0.64 4.82% i=3D$(($i*$m)) 5 4.40 4.62 0.67 5.08% i=3D$(($i/1)) 6 4.45 4.68 0.68 5.09% i=3D$(($i/$m)) 7 5.20 6.37 3.51 22.50% i=3D$(($i<<1)) 8 5.25 6.42 3.51 22.27% i=3D$(($i<<$m)) 9 4.52 4.67 0.45 3.32% i=3D$(($i||1)) 10 4.58 4.73 0.44 3.20% i=3D$(($i||$m)) 11 4.30 4.38 0.25 1.94% i=3D$((~$i)) As you can see, even for arithmetic-only script the overhead is not too big except with one case: shift operation. I decided to investigate is it usual script operation. I've went through all scripts I could find in my FreeBSD box. I've searched them with "locate .sh | grep '\.sh$'". There were a lot of them: $ locate .sh | grep '\.sh$' | wc -l 1637 But there was no any script that uses the shift operation. Good, but not enough. I've take the script that uses arithmetics and do some other job, ttfadmin.sh from the Abiword package. I've run in 10000 times in the loop with both (64-bit and 32-bit) shells. As an argument it received empty directory so no work has been done, just run, check pars, found no files, exit. It takes 65.35 seconds in the first case and 65.30 second in the seco= nd one. So the the time that arithmetics takes during the real script execution is too small in comparison to total running time (obviously: arithmetics is in-core calculations while any script usually run some external programs etc, and at least I/O is involved). Then I've run tests with the addition and multiplication to compare 64-bit shells compiled without the overview control and with it. In the last case I've turned that control on by setting corresponding command line option (-O in my patch). Here are results: 1 5.24 5.26 0.08 0.51% 2 5.31 5.34 0.08 0.50% 3 4.53 4.57 0.14 1.03% 4 4.60 4.65 0.14 1.01% You can see, the difference is just negligible.=20 So I hope I've answered all questions were asked about that 64-bit modifica= tion. All apprehensions are, I hope, dismissed. Probably, after the last look of the responsible person it can be committed, am I right? Thanks! SY, Alex