From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:48:03 +0300 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" To: ALT Devel discussion list Message-ID: <20101202214803.GA22137@altlinux.org> Mail-Followup-To: ALT Devel discussion list , "Alexey M. Tourbin" References: <1290722666-24606-1-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name> <20101126083537.GA26344@shutemov.name> <20101130003541.GA20093@altlinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101130003541.GA20093@altlinux.org> X-fingerprint: FE4C 93AB E19A 2E4C CB5D 3E4E 7CAB E6AC 9E35 361E Cc: "Alexey M. Tourbin" Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/3] optimize rpmsetcmp() X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:48:04 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:35:42AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:35:37AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:04:23AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutsemov wrote: > > >=20 > > > Tested on Intel Core2 Duo P9500, 3GiB RAM. i586. > >=20 > > apt-shell < /dev/null > [...] > > Around 41% of speed up. >=20 > On AMD Opteron Processor 275: > without patches: > 2.98user 0.19system 0:03.18elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident= )k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+10142minor)pagefaults 0swaps > with patches: > 2.20user 0.21system 0:02.42elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident= )k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+9978minor)pagefaults 0swaps > speedup is around 24% >=20 > On AMD Opteron Processor 2216: > without patches: > 2.42user 0.02system 0:02.44elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresiden= t)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+9784minor)pagefaults 0swaps > with patches: > 1.86user 0.02system 0:01.88elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresiden= t)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+9601minor)pagefaults 0swaps > speedup is around 23% >=20 > On Intel Xeon 5110 > without patches: > 2.98user 0.04system 0:03.02elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresiden= t)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+9789minor)pagefaults 0swaps > with patches: > 2.54user 0.01system 0:02.55elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresiden= t)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+9608minor)pagefaults 0swaps > speedup is around 16% >=20 > On Intel Xeon E5520 > without patches: > 2.02user 0.00system 0:02.02elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresiden= t)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+9730minor)pagefaults 0swaps > with patches: > 1.77user 0.00system 0:01.77elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresiden= t)k > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+9565minor)pagefaults 0swaps > speedup is around 12% >=20 > Not so amazing as on your test platform, but awesome anyway. > I'm going to apply these patches. > If anybody has objections, please speak up now. These patches were made on top of your cleanup patches. Looks like I'll have to override unreasoned NAK from Alexey Tourbin and apply these cleanups as well. --=20 ldv --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkz4FBMACgkQfKvmrJ41Nh4QfwCgkFiUzg6kswGt8UUvHu7jShC7 K94AnRNqoQ9yx58mky6cSttajcSVF5Ep =eJOI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--