Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:51:47 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 18:24:20, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >I believe that speedup table is what count here. And it is geniune. > >And there *is* way to obtain anyone's Ph.D. thesis in the USA, and Bob mentioned >it several days ago. > >BTW, I don't see why majority of code in CopyToSMP() should be done under lock. >All that should be done under lock is the assignment "c->used=1;". After that >you should release the lock. I would not be surprised if it'll speed up the >search with many (>= 16) CPUs. > >Personally, I'd replaced loops that copy data by memcpy() calls where possible. >That's not Fortran, and compiler should generate the code that works for the >memory-aliased case; by using memcpy() instead of loop you are telling the >compiler that there are no aliases. > >And of course "used" should be declared "volatile". [Bob, do you read that]? I will look at that. I have blown volatiles more than once, by omitting them. Fortunately, on the PC it rarely hurts anything as there are not enough registers to keep things around very long. But I certainly had some serious problems on the first SMP sparc I tried. :) thanks, btw... I'll look tonite... > >Thanks, >Eugene > >On September 03, 2002 at 18:03:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>However reasonable your explanations may be, the gist of your DTS article >>and the most important thing for comparison were the speedup numbers. After >>what we discovered and what you just posted, it is clear that they are >>based on very shaky foundations. >> >>What's far worse, until you were directly accused, there was no indication >>whatsoever for all the fiddling that was done with the auxiliary data. When >>you were accused, you denied again, until other people supported Vincent's >>point of view, when you suddenly got an email from an unknown person you're >>not willing to disclose that 'refreshed your memory'. >> >>Additionally, the only other thing to support DTS, you PhD thesis, appears >>to be basically totally unfindable for third parties. >> >>I hope you realize that a request from you to trust your numbers isn't >>very convincing. In fact, with what we know now, I'm pretty sure the >>article would never have gotten published in the first place. >> >>If Vincent wanted to discredit your results, then as far as I'm concerned, >>he's succeeded 100%. >> >>-- >>GCP
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.