On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 10:51:40AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Actually, I think I may have just had back luck and/or not warmed things up
> enough. I just re-ran the test a few dozen times, carefully ensuring the
> data was in the cache and periodically alternating between the binary with
> the patch applied and the one without it. The results converged to within
> 1-2% of each other, with the patched version even winning about half the
> time. The averages across all the runs showed a ~0.4% regression, which I
> suspect is well within the noise range.
I went ahead and committed this patch. Please let me know if there are any
remaining concerns.
--
nathan