lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: random: Benchamrking fast_mix2
So I just tried your modified 32-bit mixing function where you the
rotation to the middle step instead of the last step. With the
usleep(), it doesn't make any difference:

# schedtool -R -p 1 -e /tmp/fast_mix2_48
fast_mix: 212 fast_mix2: 400 fast_mix3: 400
fast_mix: 208 fast_mix2: 408 fast_mix3: 388
fast_mix: 208 fast_mix2: 396 fast_mix3: 404
fast_mix: 224 fast_mix2: 408 fast_mix3: 392
fast_mix: 200 fast_mix2: 404 fast_mix3: 404
fast_mix: 208 fast_mix2: 412 fast_mix3: 396
fast_mix: 208 fast_mix2: 392 fast_mix3: 392
fast_mix: 212 fast_mix2: 408 fast_mix3: 388
fast_mix: 200 fast_mix2: 716 fast_mix3: 773
fast_mix: 426 fast_mix2: 717 fast_mix3: 728

without the usleep() I get:

692# schedtool -R -p 1 -e /tmp/fast_mix2_48
fast_mix: 104 fast_mix2: 224 fast_mix3: 176
fast_mix: 56 fast_mix2: 112 fast_mix3: 56
fast_mix: 56 fast_mix2: 64 fast_mix3: 64
fast_mix: 64 fast_mix2: 64 fast_mix3: 48
fast_mix: 56 fast_mix2: 64 fast_mix3: 56
fast_mix: 56 fast_mix2: 64 fast_mix3: 64
fast_mix: 56 fast_mix2: 64 fast_mix3: 64
fast_mix: 56 fast_mix2: 72 fast_mix3: 56
fast_mix: 56 fast_mix2: 64 fast_mix3: 56
fast_mix: 64 fast_mix2: 64 fast_mix3: 56

I'm beginning to suspect that some of the differences between your
measurements and mine might be that in addition to having a smaller
cache (8M instead of 12M), I suspect there are some other caches,
perhaps the uop cache, which are also smaller on the mobile processor,
and that is explaining why you are seeing some different results.

>
> Of course, using wider words works fantastically.
> These constants give 76 bits if avalanche after 2 rounds,
> essentially full after 3....

And here is my testing using your 64-bit variant:

# schedtool -R -p 1 -e /tmp/fast_mix2_49
fast_mix: 294 fast_mix2: 476 fast_mix4: 442
fast_mix: 286 fast_mix2: 1058 fast_mix4: 448
fast_mix: 958 fast_mix2: 460 fast_mix4: 1002
fast_mix: 940 fast_mix2: 1176 fast_mix4: 826
fast_mix: 476 fast_mix2: 840 fast_mix4: 826
fast_mix: 462 fast_mix2: 840 fast_mix4: 826
fast_mix: 462 fast_mix2: 826 fast_mix4: 826
fast_mix: 462 fast_mix2: 826 fast_mix4: 826
fast_mix: 462 fast_mix2: 826 fast_mix4: 826
fast_mix: 462 fast_mix2: 840 fast_mix4: 826

... and without usleep()

690# schedtool -R -p 1 -e /tmp/fast_mix2_48
fast_mix: 52 fast_mix2: 116 fast_mix4: 96
fast_mix: 32 fast_mix2: 32 fast_mix4: 24
fast_mix: 28 fast_mix2: 36 fast_mix4: 24
fast_mix: 32 fast_mix2: 32 fast_mix4: 24
fast_mix: 32 fast_mix2: 36 fast_mix4: 24
fast_mix: 36 fast_mix2: 32 fast_mix4: 24
fast_mix: 32 fast_mix2: 36 fast_mix4: 28
fast_mix: 28 fast_mix2: 28 fast_mix4: 24
fast_mix: 32 fast_mix2: 36 fast_mix4: 28
fast_mix: 32 fast_mix2: 32 fast_mix4: 24

The bottom line is that what we are primarily measuring here is all
different cache effects. And these are going to be quite different on
different microarchitectures.

That being said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are some
CPU's where the extract memory dereference to the twist_table[] would
definitely hurt, since Intel's amazing cache architecture(tm) is no
doubt covering a lot of sins. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some
of these new mixing functions would fare much better if we tried
benchmarking them on an 32-bit ARM processor, for example....

- Ted



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-12 23:41    [W:0.064 / U:5.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site