On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 04:14:17PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Willy TARREAU <willy@w.ods.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 03:05:57PM +0800, hugang wrote:
> > Ok, I recoded the tree myself with if/else, and it's now faster than
> > all others, whatever the compiler.
>
> Have you tried with not simply increasing, but random numbers? I guess
> this could make quite a difference here because of branch prediction.
I thought about this, and indeed, that's what I used in the program I used
to bench the first function I sent yesterday. The problem of the random, is
that it's so slow that you must build a giant table and apply your tests to
this table. So the problem mainly displaces to data cache misses which cost
more than certain operations. If you try it, you'll note that it's difficult
to get comparable results twice.
Other solutions include non-linear suites such as mixing some sequential
values with BSWAP. Eg: x ^ bswap(x) ^ bswap(x << 4).
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:13 EST