FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 v/sgcc2.9.5)

Mon Feb 16 06:06:28 PST 2004

Hi Wes,

How many mflops do you get if on your 5.2 machine you run a flops
that was compiled -static on 4.9 ?  My tests show the speed more
than doubles.

Thanks-
JT

>From: Wes Peters <wes at softweyr.com>
>To: des at des.no (Dag-Erling Smørgrav),Alexandr Kovalenko 
><never at nevermind.kiev.ua>
>CC: freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org, Juan Tumani <jtumani55 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 
>v/sgcc2.9.5)
>Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:52:16 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mx2.freebsd.org ([216.136.204.119]) by mc9-f9.hotmail.com 
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:52:44 -0800
>Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18])by 
>mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPid B8559565B0; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 
>19:51:57 -0800 (PST)(envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org)
>Received: from hub.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by hub.freebsd.org 
>(Postfix) with ESMTPid 6CDEE16A50C; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:51:53 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])by 
>hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B429316A4CEfor 
><freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org>;Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:51:30 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26])by 
>mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF9243D1Dfor 
><freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org>;Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:51:30 -0800 
>(PST)(envelope-from wes at softweyr.com)
>Received: from 204.68.178.129 (66-91-236-204.san.rr.com [66.91.236.204])by 
>smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid 463A78836A3; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 
>19:51:26 -0800 (PST)
>X-Message-Info: EoYTbT2lH2OyKE31GpCEKyiRPPOIBbCy
>Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org
>User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
>References: 
><BAY12-F37zmBUw7MurD00010899 at hotmail.com><20040214082420.GB77411 at nevermind.kiev.ua> 
><xzpvfm8yssm.fsf at dwp.des.no>
>In-Reply-To: <xzpvfm8yssm.fsf at dwp.des.no>
>Message-Id: <200402160352.16477.wes at softweyr.com>
>X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to 
>FreeBSD<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request at freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
>List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request at freebsd.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request at freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: owner-freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org
>Return-Path: owner-freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2004 03:52:45.0036 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[55C1E2C0:01C3F440]
>
>On Sunday 15 February 2004 12:46, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > Alexandr Kovalenko <never at nevermind.kiev.ua> writes:
> > > Could you please explain me this? Result is fully reproduceable. 
>Please
> > > note, that the only difference is the output file name. Even resulting
> > > files match bit-to-bit. [...]
> >
> > Definitely some kind of alignment problem, but it only shows up at
> > some optimization levels and not others.
>
>I've tested the patch Dan mentioned before and the results were 
>astonishing.
>Running the flops.c 1.2 program in a loop, lengthening the environment 
>string
>by one byte each time, I get 8 successive runs of fast, then 8 successive
>runs of slow, where fast and slow vary between 650 and 990 mflops.  With 
>the
>patch, the performance is always 990, within a few percent.
>
>Should I commit this?
>
>RCS file: /big/ncvs/src/sys/kern/kern_exec.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.235
>diff -u -w -r1.235 kern_exec.c
>--- kern_exec.c 28 Dec 2003 04:37:59 -0000      1.235
>+++ kern_exec.c 11 Feb 2004 16:47:28 -0000
>@@ -1014,6 +1014,15 @@
>                  */
>                 vectp = (char **)(destp - (imgp->argc + imgp->envc + 2) *
>                     sizeof(char *));
>+
>+       /*
>+        * Align stack to a multiple of 0x20.
>+        * XXX vectp has the wrong type; we usually want a vm_offset_t;
>+        * the suword() family takes a void *, but should take a 
>vm_offset_t.
>+        * XXX should align stack for signals too.
>+        * XXX should do this more machine/compiler-independently.
>+        */
>+       vectp = (char **)(((vm_offset_t)vectp & ~(vm_offset_t)0x1F) - 4);
>
>         /*
>          * vectp also becomes our initial stack base
>
>
>--
>          "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
>
>Wes Peters                                                  Softweyr LLC
>wes at softweyr.com                                    http://softweyr.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

_________________________________________________________________
Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your 
online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/