search for: parkas16

On 20 May 2014 16:40, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 20/05/2014 16:01, Yi Kong wrote: >> >> I've set up a public LNT server to show the result of perf stat. There >> is a huge improvement compared with timeit tool. >> http://parkas16.inria.fr:8000/ > > > Hi Yi Kong, > > thanks for testing these changes. > > >> Patch is updated to pin the process to a single core, the readings are >> even more accurate. It's hard coded to run everything on core 0, so >> don't run parallel testing wi...

I've set up a public LNT server to show the result of perf stat. There is a huge improvement compared with timeit tool. http://parkas16.inria.fr:8000/ Patch is updated to pin the process to a single core, the readings are even more accurate. It's hard coded to run everything on core 0, so don't run parallel testing with it for now. The tool now depends on Linux perf and schedtool. I'm running tests on ARM Cortex board...

On 20 May 2014 17:55, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > I set it to 2667.000 Mhz on parkas16. You can try if this improves > something. I don't see any sign of improvement. Since we can't get raw data any better, I think we should get this merged and tested on build bots for a while and see how it goes. Cheers, Yi Kong

...grosser.es> wrote: >>> >>> On 20/05/2014 16:01, Yi Kong wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I've set up a public LNT server to show the result of perf stat. There >>>> is a huge improvement compared with timeit tool. >>>> http://parkas16.inria.fr:8000/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Yi Kong, >>> >>> thanks for testing these changes. >>> >>> >>>> Patch is updated to pin the process to a single core, the readings are >>>> even more accurate. It's...

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 21/05/2014 22:13, Yi Kong wrote: > >> On 20 May 2014 17:55, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> I set it to 2667.000 Mhz on parkas16. You can try if this improves >>> something. >>> >> >> I don't see any sign of improvement. >> >> Since we can't get raw data any better, I think we should get this >> merged and tested on build bots for a while and see how it goes. >> &...

On 16 May 2014 18:40, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > Why not use the cycle count which perf exposes from hardware? That would seem even better to me, but data would be better. =] That's an interesting idea. However I'm concerned if that will miss some aspects of compiler optimization. For example frequent cache misses would have much smaller