j
: Next unread message k
: Previous unread message j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
From: Henrik Gedenryd [mailto:Henrik.Gedenryd@lucs.lu.se] I've seen tinyBenchmarks slowdowns on the order of 3-5% from merely filing in change sets
[...]
Have you ever seen it speed up? It wouldn't surprise me if the placement of frequently-referenced objects relative to the processor cache made a difference, especially on Intel architectures. tinyBenchmarks will probably fit in cache if all the accesses hit different cache lines, but all you need is for two frequently-accessed addresses to flush each other out of the cache and cause waits while they're re-loaded.
I'm not a processor expert, and I know there are several on this list. To the experts: Could this be the difference? And can we watch the cache behaviour on x86 sing the internal monitoring stuff to find out?
- Peter
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org