discuss-gnuradio
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] oprofile inband code results


From: George Nychis
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] oprofile inband code results
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:32:52 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824)



Eric Blossom wrote:
Because we use a lot of them to construct argument lists. It would be possible to move to an pmt_vector based approach, which
would cut this down dramatically.  I think we're still a bit early in
the game to start that kind of modification.

I think the first thing I would try is moving to the intrusive
implementation of the boost shared pointers for the pmt types.
Then I'd look at a data type specific alloc/free as well as see how
the default allocator is working across multiple threads.  That is,
does it already use a separate allocation pool / thread.  If it
doesn't, we could speed up the allocation/free and reduce the amount
of locking required in the typical case.

Before hacking away, I think we need to run the same test cases on
other machines besides the P4 Xeon and gather the oprofile data, as
well as the basic [ $ time <mytest> ] numbers.  We may find wildy
different answers as f(microarchitecture). There's a reason intel
isn't featuring the P4 Xeon anymore ;)


This sounds good to me. I can contribute numbers for the core duo, which is my x60s laptop. Other than that, I think I only have access to P4's. Let me organize this in terms of which applications to run for the testing, write up a little how-to for running the tests, and maybe others on the list can contribute results with different architectures.

- George




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]