On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 04:37:37PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> But I agree we need to verify it before taking a decision, and that
> the numbers are better than theory, or to rephrase it "let's check the
> theory is right" :)
Okay, microbenchmark:
% cat test_memcmp.c
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define MB (1024ul * 1024ul)
#define GB (1024ul * MB)
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
char *p;
int i;
posix_memalign((void **)&p, 2 * MB, 8 * GB);
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
assert(memcmp(p, p + 4*GB, 4*GB) == 0);
asm volatile ("": : :"memory");
}
return 0;
}
huge zero page (initial implementation):
Performance counter stats for './test_memcmp' (5 runs):
32356.272845 task-clock # 0.998 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.13% )
40 context-switches # 0.001 K/sec ( +- 0.94% )
0 CPU-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
4,218 page-faults # 0.130 K/sec ( +- 0.00% )
76,712,481,765 cycles # 2.371 GHz ( +- 0.13% ) [83.31%]
36,279,577,636 stalled-cycles-frontend # 47.29% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.28% ) [83.35%]
1,684,049,110 stalled-cycles-backend # 2.20% backend cycles idle ( +- 2.96% ) [66.67%]
134,355,715,816 instructions # 1.75 insns per cycle
# 0.27 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.10% ) [83.35%]
13,526,169,702 branches # 418.039 M/sec ( +- 0.10% ) [83.31%]
1,058,230 branch-misses # 0.01% of all branches ( +- 0.91% ) [83.36%]
32.413866442 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.13% )
virtual huge zero page (the second implementation):
Performance counter stats for './test_memcmp' (5 runs):
30327.183829 task-clock # 0.998 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.13% )
38 context-switches # 0.001 K/sec ( +- 1.53% )
0 CPU-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
4,218 page-faults # 0.139 K/sec ( +- 0.01% )
71,964,773,660 cycles # 2.373 GHz ( +- 0.13% ) [83.35%]
31,191,284,231 stalled-cycles-frontend # 43.34% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.40% ) [83.32%]
773,484,474 stalled-cycles-backend # 1.07% backend cycles idle ( +- 6.61% ) [66.67%]
134,982,215,437 instructions # 1.88 insns per cycle
# 0.23 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0.11% ) [83.32%]
13,509,150,683 branches # 445.447 M/sec ( +- 0.11% ) [83.34%]
1,017,667 branch-misses # 0.01% of all branches ( +- 1.07% ) [83.32%]
30.381324695 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.13% )
On Westmere-EX virtual huge zero page is ~6.7% faster.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature