[lld] r232460 - [ELF] Use parallel_for_each for writing.
Shankar Easwaran
shankare at codeaurora.org
Wed Mar 18 09:31:34 PDT 2015
It looks like these are the right numbers and Strange, I dont see a huge
advantage of the patch trying to parallelize writing output sections in
parallel.
On 3/18/2015 11:23 AM, Rafael EspĂndola wrote:
> On 18 March 2015 at 12:14, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Does this repeat with the same numbers across similar tries ?
> The "-r 20" tells perf to do 20 runs. Repeating the entire thing for
> sanity check I got
>
>
> master:
> 1850.315854 task-clock (msec) # 0.999 CPUs
> utilized ( +- 0.20% )
> 1,246 context-switches # 0.673 K/sec
> 0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
> ( +-100.00% )
> 191,223 page-faults # 0.103 M/sec
> ( +- 0.00% )
> 5,570,279,746 cycles # 3.010 GHz
> ( +- 0.08% )
> 3,076,652,220 stalled-cycles-frontend # 55.23% frontend
> cycles idle ( +- 0.15% )
> <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
> 6,061,467,442 instructions # 1.09 insns per
> cycle
> # 0.51 stalled
> cycles per insn ( +- 0.00% )
> 1,262,014,047 branches # 682.053 M/sec
> ( +- 0.00% )
> 26,526,169 branch-misses # 2.10% of all
> branches ( +- 0.00% )
>
> 1.852094924 seconds time elapsed
> ( +- 0.20% )
>
> master minus your patch:
>
> 1837.986418 task-clock (msec) # 0.999 CPUs
> utilized ( +- 0.01% )
> 1,170 context-switches # 0.637 K/sec
> 0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
> 191,225 page-faults # 0.104 M/sec
> ( +- 0.00% )
> 5,517,484,340 cycles # 3.002 GHz
> ( +- 0.01% )
> 3,036,583,530 stalled-cycles-frontend # 55.04% frontend
> cycles idle ( +- 0.02% )
> <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
> 6,004,436,870 instructions # 1.09 insns per
> cycle
> # 0.51 stalled
> cycles per insn ( +- 0.00% )
> 1,250,685,716 branches # 680.465 M/sec
> ( +- 0.00% )
> 26,539,486 branch-misses # 2.12% of all
> branches ( +- 0.00% )
>
> 1.839759787 seconds time elapsed
> ( +- 0.01% )
>
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list