[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [REPORT] [GSoC - TCG Continuous Benchmarking] [#3] QEMU 5.0 and 5.1-
From: |
Alex Bennée |
Subject: |
Re: [REPORT] [GSoC - TCG Continuous Benchmarking] [#3] QEMU 5.0 and 5.1-pre-soft-freeze Dissect Comparison |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:41:45 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.5.4; emacs 28.0.50 |
Ahmed Karaman <ahmedkhaledkaraman@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> The third report of the TCG Continuous Benchmarking series utilizes
> the tools presented in the previous report for comparing the
> performance of 17 different targets across two versions of QEMU. The
> two versions addressed are 5.0 and 5.1-pre-soft-freeze (current state
> of QEMU).
>
> After summarizing the results, the report utilizes the KCachegrind
> tool and dives into the analysis of why all three PowerPC targets
> (ppc, ppc64, ppc64le) had a performance degradation between the two
> QEMU versions.
It's an interesting degradation especially as you would think that a
change in the softfloat implementation should hit everyone in the same
way.
We actually have a tool for benchmarking the softfloat implementation
itself called fp-bench. You can find it in tests/fp. I would be curious
to see if you saw a drop in performance in the following:
./fp-bench -p double -o cmp
>
> Report link:
> https://ahmedkrmn.github.io/TCG-Continuous-Benchmarking/QEMU-5.0-and-5.1-pre-soft-freeze-Dissect-Comparison/
If you identify a drop in performance due to a commit linking to it from
the report wouldn't be a bad idea so those that want to quickly
replicate the test can do before/after runs.
>
> Previous reports:
> Report 1 - Measuring Basic Performance Metrics of QEMU:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg06692.html
> Report 2 - Dissecting QEMU Into Three Main Parts:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg09441.html
>
> Best regards,
> Ahmed Karaman
--
Alex Bennée