Re: [PATCH] x86_64/memset: use "small block" code for blocks up to 30 bytes long

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:53:28PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >> With your program I see similar results:
> >>
> >> ....
> >> size 50: min=10, avg=10           min=10, avg=10
> >> size 52: min=10, avg=10           min=10, avg=10
> >
> > The ... was the part where mine seemed better. :)
> 
> Do you seriously think I would go as low as lying by omission?
> Here are the full, unabridged files of three runs of both algorithms.

No, that's not what I meant, and I'm sorry for making it sound that
way. I just meant it was the interesting part I wanted to compare. For
me, I get ~1 cycle difference for a number of the small runs, but on
your test that measures rates in a way that's probably more applicable
to real-world use, there was no measureable difference one way or the
other.

Rich