Tests were made using LmBench . We also used the informal Linux benchmark of compiling the kernel, which is a traditional measure of Linux performance. The mix of process creation, file I/O, and computation in the kernel compile is a good guess at a typical user load in a system used for program development.
Performance comparisons were made against various versions of the kernel. In our evaluations we compare the kernel against the original version without the optimizations discussed in this paper. This highlights each optimizations alone without the others. This lets us look more closely at how each change affects the kernel by itself before comparing all optimizations in aggregate. This turned out to be very useful as many optimizations did not interact as we expected them to and the end effect was not the sum off all the optimizations. Some optimizations even cancelled the effect of previous ones. So, measurements are relative to the original (unoptimized) kernel versus only the specific optimization being discussed for comparison unless otherwise noted.
Finally, we gathered low-level statistics with the PPC 604 hardware monitor. Using this monitor we were able to characterize the system's behavior in great detail by counting every TLB and cache miss, whether data or instruction. Software counters on the 603 were used to serve in much the same fashion as hardware performance monitoring hardware on the 604, but with a less fine-grained scope.
We make many references to the 603 software versus the 604 hardware TLB reload mechanism. In this context, when we refer to the 604 we mean the 604 style of TLB reloads (in hardware) which includes the 750 and 601.