lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark
Date
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:46, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 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.

What I mean is if you take the loops_per_ms from one machine and plug it in
using the -l option on another you can do it now without any modification to
the interbench code.

Cheers,
Con
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-14 03:08    [W:0.053 / U:3.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site