Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > If you look at speed-up numbers, you can think that the numbers are > unstable, but in fact, the best time in 5 runs does not differ more > than 0.01s between those trials. But because difference for >=128Kb > is 0.05s or less, the accuracy of the above numbers is less than 25%. Then wouldn't it make the following statement... > But overall the outcome is clear -- read() is always a winner. "... a winner, below 128kB; above that the difference is within noise and measurement error"? > It would be interesting to see what difference Nehalem, which has a > smaller but much faster L2 cache than Core 2. It may perform better > at larger sizes up to 256Kb. Interesting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html