search for: gromacs

...y passes its test suite) and apbs 1.4.1's limited openmp support. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Jack Howarth < howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On a positive note, current llvm 3.7svn with the two outstanding > OPENMP patches applied builds the openmp support in gromacs 5.0.4 and the > resulting build fully passes the gromacs regression test suite. Tested on > x86_64-apple-darwin14. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150503/b6dd7bb8/attachment.html&gt...

...-another scheduler. Our scheduler uses a combinatorial optimization approach to balance ILP and register pressure. In one experiment, we added more precise latency information for most common x86 instructions to our scheduler and noticed a 10% performance improvement on one FP2006 benchmark, namely gromacs. More precisely, we compared: > > >(1) LLVM2.9+ourScheduler+preciseLatency > >against > >(2) LLVM2.9+ourScheduler+LLVM's-rough-1-10-latency-model > > > >And (1) was faster than (2) by 10%. We concluded that adding precise latency information may significantly...

...uler on x86-64 uses "rough" latency values. So, we added the precise latency values published by Agner (http://www.agner.org/optimize/) and that led to more speedup relative to LLVM's ILP scheduler on some benchmarks. The most significant gain from adding precise latencies was on the gromacs benchmark, which has a high degree of ILP. I am attaching the benchmarking results on x86-64 using both LLVM's rough latencies and Agner's precise latencies: This work makes two points: -A B&B algorithm can discover significantly better schedules than a heuristic can do for some la...

...-another scheduler. Our scheduler uses a combinatorial optimization approach to balance ILP and register pressure. In one experiment, we added more precise latency information for most common x86 instructions to our scheduler and noticed a 10% performance improvement on one FP2006 benchmark, namely gromacs. More precisely, we compared: (1) LLVM2.9+ourScheduler+preciseLatency against (2) LLVM2.9+ourScheduler+LLVM's-rough-1-10-latency-model And (1) was faster than (2) by 10%. We concluded that adding precise latency information may significantly improve the performance of programs like grom...

...duler on x86-64 uses "rough" latency values. So, we added the precise latency values published by Agner (http://www.agner.org/optimize/) and that led to more speedup relative to LLVM's ILP scheduler on some benchmarks. The most significant gain from adding precise latencies was on the gromacs benchmark, which has a high degree of ILP. I am attaching the benchmarking results on x86-64 using both LLVM's rough latencies and Agner's precise latencies: > > This work makes two points: > > -A B&B algorithm can discover significantly better schedules than a heuristic c...

...-another scheduler. Our scheduler uses a combinatorial optimization approach to balance ILP and register pressure. In one experiment, we added more precise latency information for most common x86 instructions to our scheduler and noticed a 10% performance improvement on one FP2006 benchmark, namely gromacs. More precisely, we compared: > > (1) LLVM2.9+ourScheduler+preciseLatency > against > (2) LLVM2.9+ourScheduler+LLVM's-rough-1-10-latency-model > > And (1) was faster than (2) by 10%. We concluded that adding precise latency information may significantly improve the perfor...

...uses "rough" latency values. So, we added the precise latency values > published by Agner (http://www.agner.org/optimize/) and that led to more speedup > relative to LLVM's ILP scheduler on some benchmarks. The most significant gain > from adding precise latencies was on the gromacs benchmark, which has a high > degree of ILP. I am attaching the benchmarking results on x86-64 using both > LLVM's rough latencies and Agner's precise latencies: > > This work makes two points: > > -A B&B algorithm can discover significantly better schedules than a heu...

On Jul 22, 2010, at 4:18 PMPDT, Reza Yazdani wrote: > Hi, > > I ran Spec2006 with -O4. All integer benchmarks passed, but only 8 > out 17 of floating point benchmarks passed. Is this normal or I > made a mistake in my build? Hi Reza. Somebody on Linux should answer, but I don't think it's normal. You may have checked out the source at a moment when it had a bug

Hi, I ran Spec2006 with -O4. All integer benchmarks passed, but only 8 out 17 of floating point benchmarks passed. Is this normal or I made a mistake in my build? Reza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100722/4c4a81a9/attachment.html>

...ug.cgi?id=15040#c4) With the updated trunk, clang still gives an error when FMA4 is enabled but does fine when -no-integrated-as is used. So that's a bug with LLVM's integrated assembler. On a related note, r173176 mentioned in http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15282 does not fix the gromacs miscompare error either. However -no-integrated-as helps in all cases. I am not sure if r173176 is incomplete or the issue is something else. -Anitha > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Anitha B Gollamudi > <anitha.boyapati at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 11 March 2...

...h the updated trunk, clang still gives an error when FMA4 is > enabled but does fine when -no-integrated-as is used. So that's a bug > with LLVM's integrated assembler. > > On a related note, r173176 mentioned in > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15282 does not fix the gromacs > miscompare error either. However -no-integrated-as helps in all cases. > > I am not sure if r173176 is incomplete or the issue is something else. > > > > -Anitha > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Anitha B Gollamudi > > <anitha.boyapati a...

...--- --------- 410.bwaves -- 0.0194 RE 416.gamess -- 0.00135 RE 433.milc -- 16.5 -- S 434.zeusmp -- 0.00146 RE 435.gromacs -- 0.00138 RE 436.cactusADM -- 0.00135 RE 437.leslie3d -- 0.00141 RE 444.namd -- 19.4 -- S 447.dealII...

I'm still slightly confused. Is the error now fixed or is there still a bug in LLVM's integrated assembler? On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Anitha B Gollamudi < anitha.boyapati at gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 March 2013 17:00, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > > Hi Anitha, > > > > > >> Ah, I am taking back my above words w.r.t encoding.

Jack, Could you, please, submit a bug report? -- including steps to reproduce (where you got imageMagick sources, how exactly you compiled them, etc) Andrey On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Chandler,

...eds of scientific / numeric packages, as well as the openMosix enabled 2.4.27 kernel, to the cdrom version of Knoppix. Relative to the previous release 0.6.9.3, hundreds of applications have been updated, and many new applications (such as polyxmass, scigraphica, kst, octaviz, gromacs) have been added. Quantian now contains over 2400 Debian packages, and over 800 packages for R. Quantian comes as one bootable dvd iso of 2.5gb (compressed) with almost 7 gb (uncompressed) of software of interest to quantitative analysts, scientists, researchers or students. Ann...

...eds of scientific / numeric packages, as well as the openMosix enabled 2.4.27 kernel, to the cdrom version of Knoppix. Relative to the previous release 0.6.9.3, hundreds of applications have been updated, and many new applications (such as polyxmass, scigraphica, kst, octaviz, gromacs) have been added. Quantian now contains over 2400 Debian packages, and over 800 packages for R. Quantian comes as one bootable dvd iso of 2.5gb (compressed) with almost 7 gb (uncompressed) of software of interest to quantitative analysts, scientists, researchers or students. Ann...

...194 RE > 416.gamess -- > 0.00135 RE > 433.milc -- > 16.5 -- S > 434.zeusmp -- > 0.00146 RE > 435.gromacs -- > 0.00138 RE > 436.cactusADM -- > 0.00135 RE > 437.leslie3d -- > 0.00141 RE > 444.namd...

On Sep 17, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Ghassan Shobaki wrote: > Hi, > > I am currently writing a paper documenting a research project that we have done on pre-allocation instruction scheduling to balance ILP and register pressure. In the paper we compare the pre-allocation scheduler that we have developed to LLVM's default schedulers for two targets: x86-64 and x86-32. We would like to

...ore2:     INT score: 17.02     FP score: 15.24 So, there is a significant difference in this case. In fact, the 8% geometric-mean improvement on FP2006 is a huge improvement that comes out of many double-digit percentage improvements on some individual benchmarks. The biggest improvement is 48% on gromacs, which is a CPU-intensive FP benchmark. The above geometric means are consistent with the logical expectation that LLVM's performance in the native x86-64 mode is better, because more spill code is generated when the -m32 option is used. However, these aggregate numbers hide the fact that LL...

...% -9.25% 416.gamess 27.75 23.15 24.85 19.87% 11.67% 9234580 9311389 9498620 -0.82% -2.78% 433.milc 23.38 21.11 23.76 10.72% -1.63% 143476 148267 155756 -3.23% -7.88% 434.zeusmp 19.58 18.92 20.01 3.49% -2.16% 264976 273096 279569 -2.97% -5.22% 435.gromacs 13.67 12.96 13.54 5.49% 0.94% 1061640 1100340 1138544 -3.52% -6.75% 436.cactusADM 15.51 15.78 15.42 -1.77% 0.53% 847904 869614 910019 -2.50% -6.83% 437.leslie3d 15.90 14.65 15.35 8.60% 3.65% 102357 106347 111073 -3.75% -7.85% 444.namd 20.02 18...