On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 10:51:40AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > Actually, I think I may have just had back luck and/or not warmed things up > enough. I just re-ran the test a few dozen times, carefully ensuring the > data was in the cache and periodically alternating between the binary with > the patch applied and the one without it. The results converged to within > 1-2% of each other, with the patched version even winning about half the > time. The averages across all the runs showed a ~0.4% regression, which I > suspect is well within the noise range.
I went ahead and committed this patch. Please let me know if there are any remaining concerns. -- nathan
