In article <1992Aug18.080437.3944@fys.ruu.nl>, hooft@fys.ruu.nl (Rob Hooft) writes: | In <NOP.92Aug17135014@theory.Mankato.MSUS.EDU> nop@theory.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Jay A. Carlson) writes: | | >I'm not sure that all this trouble is worth it. Does anyone have any | >hard data on the performance loss of jump tables? | | Well, I think the only way to correctly test thi is to run the BYTE | bench again. Especially the 'concurrent shell script' part. I didn't | do this yet, but I had a very strange experience with the jumptables | yesterday, and it is reproducible (so far). | I didn't believe this, so I repeated it many times. Is there any one | who has an explanation for the fact that the '-jump'ed executable is | 3% faster? Could this be caused by a difference in the crt0.o? Have you timed this with the time command (I posted one about 2 weeks ago to tsx and banjo, hope it's up by now on tsx at least)? I have a thought that the jump may be effecting the ratio of user/sys time (no, I don't know how) and that would show it. I believe the flops uses the user CPU to calculate performance, not the total. That would also show the realtime, which I would expect to go up. -- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interfaceforon access scanning |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Eric W. Biederman | Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL" |
git: | |
