Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80069 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71940 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2015 18:40:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Jan 2015 18:40:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=anatol.php@belski.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=anatol.php@belski.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain belski.net from 85.214.73.107 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: anatol.php@belski.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.73.107 klapt.com Received: from [85.214.73.107] ([85.214.73.107:44881] helo=h1123647.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8F/B2-60454-3A495A45 for ; Thu, 01 Jan 2015 13:40:35 -0500 Received: by h1123647.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix, from userid 33) id 4AA8A23D6002; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 19:40:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from 87.159.53.5 (SquirrelMail authenticated user anatol@belski.net) by webmail.klapt.com with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 19:40:31 +0100 Message-ID: <19317b08b875a0e97035d4ba35eef162.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 19:40:31 +0100 To: "Dmitry Stogov" Cc: "Anatol Belski" , "PHP Internals" , "Xinchen Hui" , "Nikita Popov" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.2 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Merge HashTable and zend_array into a single data structure. From: anatol.php@belski.net ("Anatol Belski") Hi, On Thu, January 1, 2015 13:30, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > Thanks for analizing. > did you say "8.5 more" instructions? in my test I saw "less". > > It's really an intermedie step, and we probably will check if other > optimizations are reaaly benefitable before committing this. But yes, this > patch doesn't make any degradation, except for slight increase of memory > consumption. > yeah, i'm afraid that's a typo, less instruction retired. Here's the full report I have, rerun the profiling a couple of times again to be sure. The numbers on the right are from the patch and on the left from the mainstream. Elapsed Time: 2.428s - 2.088s = 0.339s Clockticks: 5,891,879,618 - 5,800,714,085 = 91,165,533 Instructions Retired: 10,148,429,042 - 10,121,040,536 = 27,388,506 CPI Rate: 0.581 - 0.573 = 0.007 MUX Reliability: 0.985 - 0.977 = 0.008 Paused Time: 0.263s - 0s = 0.263s Filled Pipeline Slots: Retiring: 0.483 - 0.488 = -0.006 Assists: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Bad Speculation: 1.000 - 0.890 = 0.110 Branch Mispredict: 1.000 - 1.000 = 0.000 Machine Clears: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Unfilled Pipeline Slots (Stalls): Back-end Bound: 0.049 - 0.105 = -0.056 DIV Active: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Flags Merge Stalls: 0.006 - 0.000 = 0.006 Slow LEA Stalls: 0.006 - 0.000 = 0.006 Memory Latency: LLC Miss: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 LLC Hit: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 DTLB Overhead: 0.000 - 0.001 = -0.001 Contested Accesses: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Data Sharing: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Memory Replacements: L1D Replacement Percentage: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 L2 Replacement Percentage: 1.000 - 1.000 = 0.000 LLC Replacement Percentage: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Memory Reissues: Loads Blocked by Store Forwarding: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Split Loads: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 Split Stores: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 4K Aliasing: 0.011 - 0.013 = -0.003 Front-end Bound: 0.137 - 0.100 = 0.037 ICache Misses: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 ITLB Overhead: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 DSB Switches: 0.000 - 0.000 = 0.000 As one sees, the instruction count vary, but that's most likely because of the measurement uncertainty. Regards Anatol