[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.0-test4 shocking (HT) benchmarking (wrong logic./phys. HT CPU distinction?)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003, wrote:
> in our fine physics group we recently bought a DUAL XEON P4 2666MHz, 2GB, with
> hyper-threading support and I had the honour of making the thing work. In the
> process I also did some benchmarking using two different kernels (stock
> SuSE-8.2-Pro 2.4.20-64GB-SMP, and the latest and greatest vanilla
> 2.6.0-test4). I benchmarked
> [2] running time of a multi-threaded numerical simulation making extensive use
> of FFTs, using the library.

One thing to watch out for, with fftw: I believe it will benchmark
various kernels, and decide which one to use, at run-time. If the
scheduler fools it into thinking that a particular kernel is going to
perform better, it might do the wrong thing.

Does fftw have a switch to write a debug log?

("kernel" in this context means "the small section of code used to solve
the fft", not "the OS code running in privileged mode".)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.075 / U:4.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site