[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-patches
Subject:    Re: Memory partitioning considered harmful (!?)
From:       Richard Guenther <rguenther () suse ! de>
Date:       2007-01-31 12:10:21
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0701311306400.3994 () zhemvz ! fhfr ! qr
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Toon Moene wrote:

> [ Sorry for breaking the thread.  This e-mail hasn't reached my system
>   yet, so I reply from the archive ... ]
> 
> I applied Richi's patch and it also affects my swapping problem: Less
> swapping, sped up throughput, with the same CPU time.
> 
> I now get an wall-clock time of 1 hour 10 minutes for 3200 seconds of CPU
> time.
> 
> It also shows in the amount of swap space used: with the standard code I use ~
> 450 Mbyte of RAM, ~ 470 Mbyte of SWAP, with Richi's patch the SWAP requirement
> goes down to ~ 310 Mbyte.
> 
> Now if someone could *explain* it, that would be nice :-)

Interesting.  Or rather, impossible ;)  (I assume all the above numbers
are *runtime* of whatever benchmark you compiled, not numbers from 
compiling it, right?)
 
> Are automatic arrays affected by this patch ?  Our code uses lots of local
> arrays whose size is based on an integer argument to the routine the array is
> local to.

I doubt - but can you check?

Richard.

-- 
Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
Novell / SUSE Labs
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]