Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Luke-Jr <luke-jr@×××××××.org>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] x86_64 optimization patches for glibc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:42:19
Message-Id: 200507261540.06591.luke-jr@utopios.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-amd64] x86_64 optimization patches for glibc. by Olivier Crete
On Monday 25 July 2005 22:38, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-25-07 at 22:24 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote: > > On Saturday 23 July 2005 18:44, Brian Litzinger wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 16:48 +0200, Simon Strandman wrote: > > > > > Memory to memory copy rate = 1291.600098 MBytes / sec. Block size = > > > > > Memory to memory copy rate = 2389.321777 MBytes / sec. Block size = > > > > > > Memory to memory copy rate = 1302.701782 MBytes / sec. Block size = > > > Memory to memory copy rate = 2051.979980 MBytes / sec. Block size = > > > > Before: Memory to memory copy rate = 557.960449 MBytes / sec. Block size > > = After: Memory to memory copy rate = 1120.773804 MBytes / sec. Block > > size = > > > > Anyone have a clue why I'm getting half what everyone else gets? o.O > > What kind of cpu/ram/motherboard do you have ?
RAM: 2875MB/1002MB (286%) used (I didn't see swapping during the test, tho) Motherboard: Asus K8V-SE CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ (2202.876 MHz) On Tuesday 26 July 2005 02:54, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> One of the arguments to memcpy is the clock rate in MHz of *your* CPU. > Did you adjust it appropriate for your system?
memtst 2200 1000 1048576 so, yes... unless it's expecting the "Intel equivalent" 3200 number... -- Luke-Jr Developer, Utopios http://utopios.org/ -- gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-amd64] Re: x86_64 optimization patches for glibc. Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>