Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Source code to measure it - there is something wrong

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:39:22 07/15/03

Go up one level in this thread


On July 15, 2003 at 20:58:18, Keith Evans wrote:

>On July 15, 2003 at 20:30:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On July 15, 2003 at 20:08:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On July 15, 2003 at 17:58:01, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok, i think there is one problem with Vincent's cache benchmark.
>>>>
>>>>There are two similar functions DoNrng and DoNreads. DoNrng is used to mesure
>>>>the time without hashread. But the instructions has the potential of faster
>>>>execution due to less dependencies and stalls. It may execute parts of two loop
>>>>bodies of DoNrng interlaced or simultaniesly - that is not possible in DoNreads.
>>>>Therefore the time for N DoNrng is not the time used inside the N DoNrng loop,
>>>>and maybe much faster.
>>>
>>>That is also certainly possible.  This kind of "problem" is highly
>>>obfuscated, as you can see.  It requires a lot of analysis, by a lot of
>>>people, to see the flaws.  That's why lm-bench is so respected.  It was
>>>written, a paper was written about it, another paper was written that
>>>pointed out some flaws, some of which were fixed and some of which were
>>>not really flaws.  But it has been pretty well looked at by a _lot_ of
>>>people.
>>>
>>>Other latency measures may well be as accurate, but until they "pass the
>>>test of time and exposure" they are hard to trust.
>>
>>For sure my test shows that it isn't 130 ns. It's more like 280 ns for 133Mhz
>>DDR ram. not sure whether you got RDRAM in your machine or 100Mhz DDR ram. but
>>you for sure aren't at 130ns random memory latency there.
>>
>>If instructions get paired better or worse is not real interesting. It is nice
>>when it measures in 0.1 ns accurate but if it is an error of 0.5 ns like it is
>>now (assuming no other software is disturbing) then that is not a problem for me
>>knowing the actual latencies lie in 210 for 150Mhz ram (just 300MB cache which
>>is definitely too little) to 280 for 133Mhz ram (with 500MB cache) at P4 to
>>nearly 400 ns for dual P4/K7s with DDR ram 133Mhz.
>
>Vincent,
>
>What do you think is wrong with the lmbench lat_mem_rd (memory read latency)
>benchmark?
>
>Keith

He doesn't like the number it produces, and he wants some nonsense to argue
about to show his stupidity.




This page took 0.31 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.