This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?

From: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
To: Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover dot com>
Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:28:58 -0700
Subject: Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?
References: <3F51A201.8090108@kegel.com> <20030831140037.GA16620@work.bitmover.com>

Larry McVoy wrote:

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:21:37AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:

(There seems to be large variations in successive runs of LMBench
when I try it, so it may take me a bit of work to get repeatable
results.)

Other than the context switch part or anything based on it, that shouldn't
be true, it should be very stable.

I'm pretty convinced that the variations are due to different pages being
allocated and the result cache contention makes things bounce.


Or an idiot running the benchmark.  We really do have to rule that out first.
- Dan

--
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045

References:
- LMbench as gcc performance regression test?
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?
  - From: Larry McVoy

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]