<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Hi 5600: in Analyzers</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947572#M7913</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi 5600:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;That, my friend, is a totally different question! &amp;nbsp;Let's see if anyone has any suggestions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Have you profiled this code using the VTune Amplifier XE? &amp;nbsp;Did you take a look at the bandwidth (assuming it is a processor that has bandwidth analysis support)?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:04:01 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>David_A_Intel1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-10-04T18:04:01Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Intel VTune Amplifier  and OS developement</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947569#M7910</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Can Intel VTune Amplifier be used to optimise a operating system kernel? I'm adding SSE,SSE2 and SSE3 support in my os kernel. It would be nice if it worked with it so i can optimise SIMD &amp;nbsp;operations.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:20:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947569#M7910</guid>
      <dc:creator>5600</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-04T16:20:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi 5600!</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947570#M7911</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi 5600!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In general, yes! &amp;nbsp;VTune Amplifier XE will take samples within the OS. &amp;nbsp;If you have symbols in a supported format, it should be able to give you performance metrics for your functions, etc. &amp;nbsp;You will need to run an app or something to cause OS code to be executed, obvously. &amp;nbsp;But, for example, you can use the VTune Amplifier XE to optimize the Linux* kernel (and many people do ;).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Without more details, it is difficult to say more. :\&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:32:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947570#M7911</guid>
      <dc:creator>David_A_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-04T16:32:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MOV EDI, [EBP + 0Ch]MOV ESI,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947571#M7912</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;MOV EDI, [EBP + 0Ch]&lt;BR /&gt;MOV ESI, [EBP + 08h]&lt;BR /&gt;XORPS XMM0,XMM0&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;.xLoop&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;MOVNTDQ [EDI], XMM0 &lt;BR /&gt; LEA EDI, &amp;nbsp;[EDI+16] ;Add 16 to Destination Address&lt;BR /&gt; LEA ECX, [ECX-16] ;Sub 16 from ECX&lt;BR /&gt; CMP ECX,0 &lt;BR /&gt; JNZ .xLoop&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to create a memory clear function using the above code. But it seems i might be doing something wrong because rep stosb is much faster when i use it to clear memory&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:56:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947571#M7912</guid>
      <dc:creator>5600</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-04T16:56:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi 5600:</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947572#M7913</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi 5600:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;That, my friend, is a totally different question! &amp;nbsp;Let's see if anyone has any suggestions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Have you profiled this code using the VTune Amplifier XE? &amp;nbsp;Did you take a look at the bandwidth (assuming it is a processor that has bandwidth analysis support)?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:04:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947572#M7913</guid>
      <dc:creator>David_A_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-04T18:04:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I have a Intel Core 2 Duo</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947573#M7914</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz. Tried it on Intel VTune Amplifier XE 2011 but it doesn't like Windows 8 so i get errors from VTune.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:29:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947573#M7914</guid>
      <dc:creator>5600</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-04T18:29:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>If you have the latest</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947574#M7915</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you have the latest release, it supports Windows* 8. &amp;nbsp;Please see Release Notes and documentation for details. &amp;nbsp;If you are running in Metro mode, you will need to switch to desktop mode to run VTune Amplifier XE.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:31:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947574#M7915</guid>
      <dc:creator>David_A_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-04T18:31:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>It seems like nontemporal</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947575#M7916</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It seems like nontemporal streaming stores.How do you perform time measurement of that code?Rep stosb writes could be cached because of predictable behavior of the loop.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:12:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947575#M7916</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bernard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-05T06:12:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>In general you should get</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947576#M7917</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In general you should get more store memory transfer bandwidth by using movntdq when the source &amp;nbsp;data is cached and accessed consecutively.Did you try to compare the results of rep stosb by looking at front-end and back-end stalls in Vtune?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:48:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947576#M7917</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bernard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-05T06:48:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I've got the lastest VTune</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947577#M7918</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I've got the lastest VTune but it supports only .exe files. My OS kernel is &amp;nbsp;*.bin. &amp;nbsp;for time measurement of the code i use the RTC time and check how many seconds it takes for rep stosb and SIMD memory operations to complete 10000 memory clears.i usually get 1 second for rep stosb and 2 secs for SIMD using the above code to clear 64 bytes of memory. the test was done only with a 16 byte &amp;nbsp;aligned memory address.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 16:51:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947577#M7918</guid>
      <dc:creator>5600</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-05T16:51:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I temprorily solved my</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947578#M7919</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I temprorily solved my problem by writing an console app with SIMD instructions in VC++ to test in Vtune. Is Movdqa faster than Movntdq? &amp;nbsp;Because is seems Movdqa is 9x faster than movntdq under VTune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Movntdq clocked at 0.065 seconds for moving 4KB of data&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Movdqa clocked at 0.007 seconds for moving 4KB of data&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 19:30:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947578#M7919</guid>
      <dc:creator>5600</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-05T19:30:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi </title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947579#M7920</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;By consulting Anger Fog instructions latency tables it seem that movntdq has a large latency of ~400 cycles compared to one cycle of stosb instruction.Throughput is the same for both instructions.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 2013 10:11:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947579#M7920</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bernard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-06T10:11:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Yes movdqa is faster it</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947580#M7921</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes movdqa is faster it consumers three clocks and on Has well throughput is two instructions per cycle(Anger Fog tables).But at cost of cache pollution.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 2013 10:14:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947580#M7921</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bernard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-06T10:14:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>@5600, regarding the .bin</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947581#M7922</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;@5600, regarding the .bin issue, two comments:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;1. There is a JIT API that would allow you to inform the VTune Amplifier XE where your code is loaded and what functions and statements exist in your code. &amp;nbsp;You can find all the information in the product help files (see "JIT Profiling APIs").&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2. Then, whatever loads your .bin and begins execution of the code is what you would configure VTune Amplifier XE to launch and profile?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Just FYI.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:37:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Analyzers/Intel-VTune-Amplifier-and-OS-developement/m-p/947581#M7922</guid>
      <dc:creator>David_A_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-07T16:37:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

