Re: [9fans] etherigbe.c using _xinc?

[Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>]

it looks like you are comparing these two functions

void
loopxinc(void)
{
	uint i, x;

	for(i = 0; i < N; i++){
		_xinc(&x);
		_xdec(&x);
	}
}

void
looplock(void)
{
	uint i;
	static Lock l;

	for(i = 0; i < N; i++){
		lock(&l);
		unlock(&l);
	}
}

but the former does two operations and the latter
only one.  your claim was that _xinc is slower
than incref (== lock(), x++, unlock()).  but you are
timing xinc+xdec against incref.

assuming xinc and xdec are approximately the same
cost (so i can just halve the numbers for loopxinc),
that would make the fair comparison produce:

intel core i7 2.4ghz
loop    0 nsec/call
loopxinc        10 nsec/call  // was 20
looplock        11 nsec/call

intel 5000 1.6ghz
loop    0 nsec/call
loopxinc        22 nsec/call  // was 44
looplock        25 nsec/call

intel atom 330 1.6ghz (exception!)
loop    2 nsec/call
loopxinc        7 nsec/call  // was 14
looplock        22 nsec/call

amd k10 2.0ghz
loop    2 nsec/call
loopxinc        15 nsec/call  // was 30
looplock        20 nsec/call

intel p4 xeon 3.0ghz

loop    1 nsec/call
loopxinc        38 nsec/call  // was 76
looplock        42 nsec/call

which looks like a much different story.

russ