Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:18:45 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 12:31:46, Matt Taylor wrote: >On December 10, 2002 at 12:21:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 10, 2002 at 11:34:45, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2002 at 10:57:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2002 at 09:08:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Matt i don't know it for crafty or other crap products. Crafty as we >>>>>see in test needs less nodes when running MT=2, >>>> >>>>I realize this is hard for you to do, but is it _possible_ that you can stick >>>>to _real_ data when you post? The above is _absolute_ crap. Crafty does >>>>_not_ "need less nodes when MT=2". In some positions, yes, but in >>>>more positions it needs _more_. And for the average case it needs _more_. >>>> >>>>I don't know why you continue to post something that any person here can >>>>refute simply by running the code. I've done it for you many times. The >>>>above is false. Please find something _else_ to wave your hands about. >>> >>>It came from the original data in this thread: >> >>So? That is over 6 positions. Using that to prove that a program searches >>"fewer >>nodes with mt=2" is total nonsense, as is the claim that a program +will+ search >>fewer nodes overall using two threads. It simply doesn't happen. And it falls >>in >>the same class as the perpetual-motion machine... It doesn't work... > >I like Cold Fusion a little better. I'm not going that far. There is always a remote possibility that something like that might be possible given the right materials and conditions. Perpetual motion is another thing entirely, as is a speedup > 2.0 with two processors. :) > >>>Crafty v18.15 >>>White(1): bench >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 97487547 >>>Raw nodes per second: 1160566 >>>Total elapsed time: 84 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 7.619048 >>>White(1): >>>------------------------------------- >>>Crafty v18.15 (2 cpus) >>>White(1): bench >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 94658095 >>>Raw nodes per second: 1314695 >>>Total elapsed time: 72 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 8.888889 >>> >>> >>>>What is "a buggy crafty?" And what is the 13-16%? I posted _real_ data. You >>>>post fantasy without even having access to a box? And that is fact??? >>> >>>You can see also that the NPS speedup in that above data is 13%. >> >>For _one_ test... With a version of the program that has a _known_ problem with >>SMT. > >You mean the pause issue, or is there more than just that? > >-Matt Yes.... but not just in the Lock() code... there is a critical spin-wait that needs a pause otherwise one thread will be running in a spin-wait while the other thread is waiting to get scheduled and _it_ is the one that will give the "spinner" something to work on. :)
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.