[PATCH 1/2] benchtests: Memory walking benchmark for memcpy

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Friday 22 September 2017 05:29 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Thursday 21 September 2017 11:59 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> I like the idea, and the point that the other benchmark eventually degrades
>> into measuring L1 performance an interesting insight.
>>
>> I do not like that it produces total data rate not time taken per execution.
>> Why the change? If time taken per execution was OK before, why not here?
> 
> That is because it seems more natural to express string function
> performance by the rate at which it processes data than the time it
> takes to execute.  It also makes comparison across sizes a bit
> interesting, i.e. the data rate for processing 1MB 32 bytes at a time vs
> 128 bytes at a time.
> 
> The fact that "twice as fast" sounds better than "takes half the time"
> is an added bonus :)

Carlos, do you think this is a reasonable enough explanation?  I'll fix
up the output in a subsequent patch so that it has a 'throughput'
property that the post-processing scripts can read without needing the
additional argument in 2/2.

Siddhesh