On 11/24/14 21:55, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/24/14 18:09, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Sebastian Pop wrote:
I removed the return -1 and started a bootstrap on powerpc64-linux.
Bootstrap passed on top of the 4 previous patches on powerpc64-linux.
I will report the valgrind output.
The output from valgrind looks closer to the output of master with no
other
patches: still 1M more instructions executed, and 300K more branches
Just ran my suite where we get ~25k more branches, which definitely puts
us in the noise. (that's with all 4 patches + fixing the return value
). I'm going to look at little closer at this stuff tomorrow, but I
think we've resolved the performance issue. I'll dig deeper into the
implementation tomorrow as well.
I was running without your followup patches (must have used the wrong
bits from my git stash), so those results are bogus, but in a good way.
After fixing that goof, I'm seeing consistent improvements with your set
of 4 patches and the fix for the wrong return code. Across the suite,
~140M fewer branches, not huge, but definitely not in the noise.
So, time to dig into the implementation :-)
Jeff
ps. In case you're curious about the noise, it's primarily address hashing.
