[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:31, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, David Lang wrote:
> >>>> for audio and video this would seem to be a fairly simple scaleing
> >>>> factor (or just doing a fixed amount of work rather then a fixed
> >>>> percentage of the CPU worth of work), however for X it is probably
> >>>> much more complicated (is the X load really linearly random in how
> >>>> much work it does, or is it weighted towards small amounts with
> >>>> occasional large amounts hitting? I would guess that at least beyond a
> >>>> certin point the liklyhood of that much work being needed would be
> >>>> lower)
> >>>
> >>> Actually I don't disagree. What I mean by hardware changes is more
> >>> along the lines of changing the hard disk type in the same setup.
> >>> That's what I mean by careful with the benchmarking. Taking the results
> >>> from an athlon XP and comparing it to an altix is silly for example.
> >>
> >> I'm going to cautiously disagree. If the CPU needed was scaled so it
> >> represented a fixed number of cycles (operations, work units) then the
> >> effect of faster CPU would be shown. And the total power of all attached
> >> CPUs should be taken into account, using HT or SMP does have an effect
> >> of feel.
> >
> > That is rather hard to do because each architecture's interpretation of
> > fixed number of cycles is different and this doesn't represent their
> > speed in the real world. The calculation when interbench is first run to
> > see how many "loops per ms" took quite a bit of effort to find just how
> > many loops each different cpu would do per ms and then find a way to make
> > that not change through compiler optimised code. The "loops per ms"
> > parameter did not end up being proportional to cpu Mhz except on the same
> > cpu type.
> right, but the amount of cpu required to do a specific task will also vary
> significantly between CPU families for the same task as well. as long as
> the loops don't get optimized away by the compiler I think you can setup
> some loops to do the same work on each CPU, even if they take
> significantly different amounts of time (as an off-the-wall, obviously
> untested example you could make your 'loop' be a calculation of Pi and for
> the 'audio' test you compute the first 100 digits, for the video test you
> compute the first 1000 digits, and for the X test you compute a random
> number of digits between 10 and 10000)

Once again I don't disagree, and the current system of loops_per_ms does
exactly that and can be simply used as a fixed number of loops already. My
point was there'd be argument about what sort of "loop" or load should be
used as each cpu type would do different "loops" faster and they won't
necessarily represent video, audio or X in the real world. Currently the loop
in interbench is simply:
for (i = 0 ; i < loops ; i++)
asm volatile("" : : : "memory");

and if noone argues i can use that for fixed workload.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-14 02:53    [W:0.050 / U:3.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site