> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Andrew Pinski <apinski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Yury Norov <ynorov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This series enables aarch64 with ilp32 mode. >> ... > > For folks concerned about performance, here is what we get for SPEC > CPU 2006 on ThunderX 2 CN99xx. > Positive means ILP32 is faster than LP64. This core does not have > AARCH32 so I can't compare that. > Also my LP64 scores don't change with and without the patches. > > Options: > -Ofast -flto=32 -mcpu=native -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations > -funroll-loops -fprefetch-loop-arrays > GCC 7.0.1 r245361 with ilp32 multi-arch patch applied. > 4.10rc2 Plus ILP32 patches > > SPEC CPU 2006 INT ILP32/LP64 > 400.perlbench 5.23% > 401.bzip2 7.83% > 403.gcc 6.22% > 429.mcf 14.25% > 445.gobmk -1.33% > 456.hmmer -0.61% > 458.sjeng 0.00% > 462.libquantum -7.38% > 464.h264ref 10.86% > 471.omnetpp 13.53% > 473.astar 1.38% > 483.xalancbmk 3.73% > Score 4.29% > > Rate (32): > 400.perlbench 6.10% > 401.bzip2 7.10% > 403.gcc 6.71% > 429.mcf 57.29% > 445.gobmk -0.87% > 456.hmmer -0.19% > 458.sjeng 0.22% > 462.libquantum 0.00% > 464.h264ref 11.19% > 471.omnetpp 11.80% > 473.astar -0.29% > 483.xalancbmk 8.87% > Score 8.12% These are good numbers and show that ILP32 has performance advantage over LP64. SPEC CPU2006 is a user-land benchmark and spends almost no time in the kernel (by design). Similar results for a kernel-focused benchmark would be highly interesting too, and kernel reviewers have asked for these a couple of times. Do you plan to run kernel benchmarks on the hardware you have? Thanks, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.linaro.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
