This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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] Bump up the runtime for "short" benchmarks

From: Anton Youdkevitch <anton dot youdkevitch at bell-sw dot com>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:33:05 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bump up the runtime for "short" benchmarks
References: <20190626153841.GA7331@bell-sw.com> <43284cb8-f7fd-b852-f8c2-81861c6d70af@redhat.com>

On 6/26/2019 11:32 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

On 6/26/19 11:38 AM, Anton Youdkevitch wrote:

Some benchmarks with a very short runtime shows significantly
different results across runs on Aarch64 - up to tens of percents.
Increasing the runtime to 100ms+ makes the deviation under 5%.

Tested on Aarch64 and x86-64.

	* benchtests/bench-memccpy.c: replace INNER_LOOP_ITERS
	with INNER_LOOP_ITERS_LARGE
	* benchtests/bench-memchr.c: Likewise
	* benchtests/bench-rawmemchr.c: Likewise
	* benchtests/bench-strcat.c: Likewise
	* benchtests/bench-strchr.c: Likewise
	* benchtests/bench-string.h: Likewise
	* benchtests/bench-strlen.c: Likewise
	* benchtests/bench-strncpy.c: Likewise
	* benchtests/bench-strnlen.c: Likewise

Looks OK?

Do you have commit or copyright assignment?

I don't. Previously my colleague that has did it on my behalf.


OK for master.

Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Bump up the runtime for "short" benchmarks
  - From: Carlos O'Donell

References:
- [PATCH] Bump up the runtime for "short" benchmarks
  - From: Anton Youdkevitch
- Re: [PATCH] Bump up the runtime for "short" benchmarks
  - From: Carlos O'Donell

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