X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- Message-ID: <19980629155048.25657@cerebro.laendle> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:50:48 +0200 From: Marc Lehmann To: beastium Subject: bzip2-mx vs. bzip2-nomx Mail-Followup-To: beastium Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.1.106 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.91.37 19980608 (gcc2 ss-980502 experimental)) Status: RO Content-Length: 1578 Lines: 36 The feedback I received boils down to bzip2-nomx bzip2-mx slowdown pii 1.67 1.76 1.6% amdk6 2.27 2.67 15% 144.77 168.84 14% 14.5 18.0 19% <- this i think is bogus, judging from the report cyrix6x86mx 1.75 2.22 21% pentium-mmx anybody? thanks for participating. if you look at the machine code, you can see that bzip2-mx quite heavily uses mmx instructions, but it doesn't use them in the mmx way but rather as register set extension with limited capabilities (spill space, addition etc..). it seems that, with improved scheduling and tuning, speed improvements are possible, at least on p-ii, where the slowdown is small. my tests indicate that the mmx unit on p-iis is suprisingly fast and can well execute a number of mmx instructions in parallel. this doesn't seem to be the case on k6 or 6x86mx chips, which perform quite badly :( i believe mmx on these chips is useless for normal code and normal compilers that cannot take advantage of the parallelisation. I guess thats true for the pentium-mmx as well (though I have no data) (maybe I can prove that mmx is just a useless pain in the ass everywhere ;) -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |