Re: [hatari-devel] Hatari data cache tests

[Nicolas Pomarède <npomarede@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 18/06/2015 18:19, Douglas Little a écrit :

> I did get some warnings like this during recording, which I haven't
> investigated yet....
>
> ERROR: trying to add costs to non-existing 0x1012480 caller of 0x10114e8!
> ERROR: trying to add costs to non-existing 0x101242c caller of 0x10114e8!
> ERROR: trying to add costs to non-existing 0x1012480 caller of 0x10114e8!
> ERROR: trying to add costs to non-existing 0x101242c caller of 0x10114e8!
> ERROR: trying to add costs to non-existing 0x1012480 caller of 0x10114e8!
>
>
> I also noticed that trying to profile code with TT ram allocated doesn't
> work very well as it slows my test down to less than 1fps, and can halt
> for several seconds at a time. While it's probably reasonable that it
> could get slower as the memory footprint increases, it seems to be
> happening in a very nonlinear way and the actual amount of code being
> executed remains the same. The code is executing from TT ram at the
> time, so perhaps that has something to do with it.

Hi

The error message is related to the profiler, and the slow down you 
noticed might also be due to the profiler collecting some stats in a 
linear way maybe (instead of using dichotomy or sthg similar to search a 
huge list).
Eero will certainly know better how this works.

> I'll see what else I can find....

Just in case you're bored or want to take a break from quake :) maybe 
you could write some kind of small benchmark that would count how many 
instructions (simple read or write, byte, long, ...) can be executed 
before a predefined MFP timer expires. This would allow to precisely 
measure the difference between emulation and real HW  (I agree I could 
also write this program myself and send it to falcon owners, but I 
didn't have time recently :) )

Nicolas