Hi! On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Andrea Corallo wrote: > > [ Btw, the mailing list archive will not show your attachments (just lets > > me download them); naming the files *.txt probably works, but you can > > also use a sane mime type (like, text/plain) ]. > > [ Sure can do it np, I'm just less sure if text/x-diff is such and > insane mime type for a mailing list software :) ]
Well, first and foremost, it does not *work* with our current mailing list setup. Also, anything x- only makes sense if you know the software the receiver runs (and of course you don't, this is public email, with hundreds or thousands of readers). > > Can you share a geomean improvement as well? Also something like 0.4% > > is sounds like, or is it more? > > After my first measure I was suggestted by a colleague a less noisy > system to benchmark on and a more reproducable methodology. I repeated > the tests on N1 with the following results: > > | Benchmark | Est. Peak Rate ration | > | | diluted / baseline | > |----------------+-----------------------| > | 400.perlbench | 1.018x | > | 401.bzip2 | 1.004x | > | 403.gcc | 0.987x | > | 429.mcf | 1.000x | > | 445.gobmk | 0.998x | > | 456.hmmer | 1.000x | > | 458.sjeng | 1.008x | > | 462.libquantum | 1.014x | > | 464.h264ref | 1.004x | > | 471.omnetpp | 1.017x | > | 473.astar | 1.007x | > | 483.xalancbmk | 0.998x | Cool. Well, gcc has a pretty big drop, what's up with that? Everything else looks just great :-) > I was explained xalanc tend to be very noisy being memory bound so this > explains the difference, not sure why sjeng looks less good. Sjeng is very jumpy code, so of course your patch will influence it a lot. No idea why it is less positive this run. > The > overall ratio comparing spec rates is +~0.44%. Yup, a nice healthy improvement :-) Segher
