[hatari-devel] DSP optimization?
laurent.sallafranque at free.fr
Sat Jan 15 16:52:00 CET 2011
I'm launching 2 valgrinds :
One before and one after the patch.
I'll send you the 2 screenshots tonight.
e 15/01/2011 16:07, Eero Tamminen a écrit :
> On lauantai 15 tammikuu 2011, Nicolas Pomarède wrote:
>>> Now that Hatari DSP code doesn't anymore track Aranym, could we change
>>> the dsp_core to be a static array like CPU core data is?
>>> Accessing the core through a pointer is a small overhead in about
>>> everything DSP does and we don't gain anything from it as Hatari will
>>> never emulate more than one DSP at the time (like AFAIK has been the
>>> idea with the Aranym DSP code).
>> on contrary to what it may look, it's not obvious that such patch would
>> make things faster.
>> For example on 680xx cpu, "address register indirect with displacement"
>> is faster than "absolute long", which means "move.l 12(a5),d0" is faster
>> than "move.l $75120,d0".
>> I don't know for recent cpu (x86, arm or others), but it's also possible
>> you get similar results (harder to measure with moderm
>> It would need to be profiled to see if there's a real different between
>> dereferencing a pointer or accessing directly the memory address, but I
>> don't think the gain would be noticable on CPU that would benefit from
>> it, and it could even be negative on 680x0 cpu or others cpu.
> Attached are modified dsp*.[ch] files for anybody who wants to test.
> (Diff to them is almost as large the files.)
> - Eero
> Because I have multiple cores which are frequency scaled, it's not so
> easy for me to see the difference. I'm not sure whether even this
> (as root of course):
> for cpu in /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/scaling_governor; do
> echo "performance"> $cpu;
> Would guarantee enough things?
> hatari-devel mailing list
> hatari-devel at lists.berlios.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hatari-devel