Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:18:44 -0500 From: Jason Bacon <bacon4000@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Robert Clausecker <fuz@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <hackers@freebsd.org>, kargl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Opportunities for numerical work on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <76b4e210-a00d-4a70-baaf-7fcb606c2922@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfp1pOp0aQDg_7RQW2KsCmKbU38Uuy3wxep-ZsUrmiBVeg@mail.gmail.com> References: <ZnHEVbKEh8gF-Aje@fuz.su> <06f93359-b284-494c-b8b1-dc3dba1e1264@gmail.com> <CANCZdfp1pOp0aQDg_7RQW2KsCmKbU38Uuy3wxep-ZsUrmiBVeg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/18/24 16:31, Warner Losh wrote: > Coincidentally, I just came across a recent benchmark that might > provide > some hints about where to focus the efforts: > > https://www.phoronix.com/review/bsd-linux-threadripper-7980x > <https://www.phoronix.com/review/bsd-linux-threadripper-7980x>; > > > > But stress-ng isn't a benchmark. It says so in it's docs. Also there are > several ifdef linux in the source to make it faster on linux. > > I wouldn't waste my time on that garbage. Well, I wouldn't take the results of stress-ng, or even a proper benchmark tool (if there is such a thing) at face value. I'd always run multiple tests and try to understand *why* they're producing the results that they are. I was only suggesting that these results might provide a data point to help narrow down the areas where FreeBSD could be improved. Maybe some of the apparent "weaknesses" in FreeBSD are due to #ifdef Linux // Optimized code #else // Generic code #endif as was suggested. But they might also indicate something real. We'll never know if we dismiss them without a closer look. We could at least see if any of these results are corroborated by other tools. That much is easy. -- Life is a game. Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?76b4e210-a00d-4a70-baaf-7fcb606c2922>