Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 17:32:17 12/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2002 at 16:31:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 16, 2002 at 16:03:11, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On December 16, 2002 at 14:51:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 16, 2002 at 13:32:46, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >>> >>>>I did similar tests. IIRC, I got differences of > 5% faster for, what you called >>>>"new". I unfortunately do not have the code for the "old" (2 different tables) >>>>handy anymore, to recheck. You are not probing in quiescence search, so it is >>>>reasonable to expect, that your differences are smaller. >>>> >>>>Anyway, for a very small code change (I would guess not more than 1 hour), >>>>getting 5% is not so bad. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Dieter >>> >>> >>>No, although for me it was 2% which is not so hot... >>> >>>I will probably stick with it since it is done, of course.... >> >>Did you make sure that your table is aligned avery 16 bytes and not 8, for >>instance? >> >>Miguel > > >Yes. If you look at init.c you will see where I force the starting address to >be a multiple >of 16 regardless of what malloc() gives me. > >However, my entries are 16 bytes long, and have three in a "set". No way to map >a "set" to >the front of a cache line every time. It is going to be staggered no matter >what... You can if you don't mind bloating the size of the hash by 33%... -Matt
This page took 0 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.