Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:29:33 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>, rookie@gufi.org, freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.org, Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>, David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Cached file read performance Message-ID: <20061222202933.709d2279@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20061222222757.G18486@delplex.bde.org> References: <458B3651.8090601@paradise.net.nz> <458B3E0C.6090104@freebsd.org> <d763ac660612212009x30bab8d6kecec9bc2e49a2b66@mail.gmail.com> <20061222222757.G18486@delplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> (Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:37:53 +1100 (EST)): > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > On 22/12/06, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> I suspect in such a test, memory copying speed will be a key factor, > >> I don't have number to back up my idea, but I think Linux has lots > >> of tweaks, such as using MMX instruction to copy data. > > > > I had the oppertunity to study the AMD Athlon XP Optimisation guide > > and noted their example copy routine, optimised for the chipset, was > > quite a hell of a lot faster over a straight block copy. > > > > Has anyone here done any similar modifications to optimise > > copyin/copyout? I can't imagine it'd be a bad thing to have. > > Sure. It's a larger win mainly in benchmarks. It's a twisty MD maze. I want to point out http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/#p-memcpy here. Just in case someone wants to play around a little bit. Bye, Alexander. -- I like your SNOOPY POSTER!! http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061222202933.709d2279>