This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Converted benchmark to benchtest.

On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:07:01PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 12:48:31PM +0200, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > Its nice to have but orthogonal on proposed change, so it should not
> > block this patch
> This looks like something that could easily use the $bench-inputs
> format since you're really just looking for mean times.  I haven't
> checked to see if a failed branch would be expensive compared to the
> lock/unlock cycle we're testing, but I'm guessing that it should get
> cached and hence not have an impact since we don't interleave the
> rdlock and wrlock calls.
Anyway I realized that microbenchmarks may be wrong way here.

How it is likely that you have lock in L1 cache? Andy any insigth? 
I could try to simulate it by using many locks and choosing one at
random, how that would work.

Also Siddhesh, benchmarks are useless unless you use their result so
what did you measured with your benchmark and what do you thing about
Andi's patch.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]