This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Faster strchr implementation.
- From: Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov dot dmitrieva at gmail dot com>
- To: Ondřej Bílka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:25:15 +0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Faster strchr implementation.
- References: <CAHjhQ926EE-MYDJR5Eftf+DUefBg-Gox0pw57vZ7XUwsO3OPJg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130808190716 dot GA4589 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAHjhQ92+C6uXyrUhTd3OWuoa6v2SeUaKLBuqaNX5Sqtn4ANBdg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHjhQ90S-1uBhwV44KODTcQkr=0U-P+_9Pu0O=RbYYY9e82JCA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130809164420 dot GB4972 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAHjhQ92+D_VX1mXFj3jFJORN7LkzvVLLoM+0pHGUv1f8u0csVA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHjhQ90Zkc_C8QERKUXsESWu6ti-r+WXB-zt=6qzj8j4AVFW2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130812122059 dot GB19931 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAHjhQ90P=jGYKuJwOyc5dNCx-YZk6vGYFtYzN6kdTnB8bggkTQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHjhQ91RVTYFVXW4VMMoUjyqKBg=jPE1=cJnteYVL8CUgrXk_w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130812145718 dot GA23991 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
What is the link to strlen profler? I think we didn't check it on SLM.
I would like to do now.
Thanks,
--
Liubov
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai@seznam.cz> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 04:38:45PM +0400, Liubov Dmitrieva wrote:
>>
> A simplest way is to take total time of each implementation and divide
> that by time spend by fastest implementation.
>
> This is what we are interested when we do profiling on practical
> workloads like in results_gcc.
>
> For random tests it does not make much sense.
> It will compute average with weights that are moreless arbitrary,
> In random tests used sizes 1-160 are ten times more likely
> than 160-1600 which are ten times more likely than 1600-16000.
>
> Then I did same correction as in estimated time spend graph. For given
> size variants get called different number of times so I normalized that.
>
> Now when I look to report.c I did not update it to accomodate more than
> 4 variants.
>
> for(j=0;j<100;j++){
> long cnt_n = (*cnt)[0][1][j]+(*cnt)[1][1][j]+(*cnt)[2][1][j]+(*cnt)[3][1][j];
> total_time[choice] += (*time)[choice][1][j]/((*cnt)[choice][1][j]+0.1)*(cnt_n);
> }
>
>