Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:18:26 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 19:16:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >here is your old email. You claim to look at the crafty code all the time. Do you _really_ do that or just claim you do? The email shows how you flip-flop, from he copies too much to I copy too much. This is but one of several emails that we exchanged about the subject. I certainly cleared up the 44k as being "max" later on. But you could have found that yourself had you looked... And I kept pointing out that I was _still_ getting better speedups than you were "in spite" of all the copying I do... Guess it is time to change threads again??? Since this one takes a turn you don't want to get into? I'd much rather talk about your nonsensical statements about Crafty, since those can _easily_ be disproven. But that's not on your agenda since you never responded to my real data on the smp vs non-smp post from a few days back. Again, _so_ typical... BTW the private email you posted has comments by _others_. I assume you asked for their permission (you didn't mine). That's an actionable offense as you should know because of copyright. You _should_ always ask. I don't object, but I can't speak for others that were in there. But don't let minor details about "proper behavior" deter you... > >Return-Path: <hyatt@cis.uab.edu> >X-Authentication-Warning: crafty.cis.uab.edu: hyatt owned process doing -bs >Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 11:39:49 -0500 (CDT) >From: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@cis.uab.edu> >X-X-Sender: <hyatt@crafty> >To: Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xs4all.nl> >cc: Gian-Carlo Pascutto <gcp@sjeng.org>, > Thorsten Greiner <thorsten.greiner@web.de>, <brucemo@seanet.com>, > FransMorsch <fmorsch@xs4all.nl>, <Rudolf.Huber@gmx.net>, > <sgasch@hotmail.com>, <stefan@meyer-kahlen.de>, <tckerrigan@attbi.com>, > <weilljc@club-internet.fr> >Subject: Re: Some results with ABDADA > >On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >> Crafty doesn't copy even 1/10 of the data you are copying!! >> > > >How much is he copying? I copy about 44K bytes (the TREE >structure) to split. With 4 processors, I copy it 4 times >when I split from 1 to 4 in the tree... > > > > > >> At 11:01 AM 7/28/2002 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> > >> > >> >On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Robert M. Hyatt wrote: >> > >> >> I disagree there. It is a fraction of a percent, overall, during any >> >> search I have measured it on. I don't copy a lot of data, since I >> >> can be selective... >> > >> >Does anyone have some concrete data on how evil it is to be copying >> >over lots of tree-state data on the common current x86 SMP architectures? >> > >> >(Assuming a design similar to DTS or PVS) >> > >> >Vincent has been trying to convince me this is a Very Evil Thing, >> >but I'm trying to assess what the impact is going from 4k to 1k or even to >> >+- 150 bytes. >> > >> >I've already done the first, but this includes quite a bit of >> >int->char->int conversions which I assume are also evil on current CPUs. >> > >> >The second would require a more through redesign. >> > >> >-- >> >GCP >> > >> > >> > >> > >-- >Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences >hyatt@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham >(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station >(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On September 03, 2002 at 16:33:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > > > >>On September 03, 2002 at 16:25:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On September 03, 2002 at 16:23:20, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>On September 03, 2002 at 16:10:33, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 03, 2002 at 15:56:10, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Wrong. Please re-read Vincent's message. "64k on Cray" *probably* was Bob's >>>>>>number, but "44k in Crafty" not -- at least I cannot deduce that from Vincent's >>>>>>message. >>>>> >>>>>I have it in personal email :) >>>> >>>>Does it says that all 44k are always copied? Because code definitely copies much >>>>less. >>> >>>I think that's what Robert implied (sorry, email is on another machine). >>> >>>But I agree with you that's not what looks like the code does. >>> >>>I just wanted to point out Vincent never made up the 44k number, it was >>>Robert that told Vincent that was his overhead. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >> >>Again, "max overhead". Which might on rare occasions actually be hit. Perhaps >>in fine 70 after several minutes, it might have to copy most of that stuff... >> >>This was when vincent was telling you your split overhead was too high, and >>I pointed out mine _could_ be significantly higher with no ill effects since >>fine 70 runs just "fine" on my box.. :)
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.