Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:48:52 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 21:23:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 27, 2003 at 20:09:55, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On October 27, 2003 at 20:00:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2003 at 19:57:12, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>On October 27, 2003 at 19:24:10, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 27, 2003 at 19:06:51, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't think you should be afraid. 500 CPUs is not enough -- you need >>>>>>reasonable good program to run on them. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Eugene >>>>> >>>>>I would bet on Crafty with 500 processors. That is for sure. I know it is quite >>>>>a capable program :) >>>>> >>>>>Peter. >>>> >>>>Efficiently utilizing 500 CPUs is *very* non-trivial task. I believe Bob can do >>>>it, but it will be nor quick nor easy. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Eugene >>> >>> >>>If the NUMA stuff doesn't swamp me. And if your continual updates to the >>>endgame tables doesn't swamp me. We _might_ see some progress here. :) >>> >>>If I can just figure out how to malloc() the hash tables reasonably on your >>>NUMA platform, without wrecking everything, that will be a step... >> >>Ok, just call the memory allocation function exactly where you are calling it >>now, and then let the user issue "mt" command before "hash" and "hashp" if (s)he >>want good scaling. >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene > >That's why i'm multiprocessing. All problems solved at once :) And several added. Duplicate code. Duplicate LRU egtb buffers. Threads are not necessarily bad here. We're hitting 6.75M+ nodes per second on a quad opteron at 1.8ghz. That's not bad. I'll post some output when everything is cleaned up and finalized, particularly allocating the hash tables.
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.