mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John <da_audiophile@yahoo.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Expand CPU compiler options
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:08:55 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1355054935.13447.YahooMailNeo@web140004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121209111857.GC24106@liondog.tnic>

> Let's see, if I'm reading the log file correctly, the average values of

> each test run differ by ~ 0.1 seconds tops.
> 
> For example, i7-3770K generic build gives on average 69.41404 while
> the more optimized version 69.33554. The diff between the two is even
> less than 0.1 second. The other two machines' diff is a bit higher. And
> from looking at your graphs, this is all eaten up by stddev so I'd say
> there aren't any improvements from using a different uarch target - just
> noise. AFAICT, at least.


While I agree that the differences as small - on the order of ms - they are not insignificant nor are they in the noise of the measurements.  
1) All the assumptions for ANOVA are met:
*Data are normally distributed as show in the normal quantile plots.

*The population variances are fairly equal (Levene and Barlett tests).

2) The ANOVA plots clearly show significance.
*Pair-wise analysis by Tukey-Kramer shows significance at the 0.05 level for all CPUs compared.  Below are the differences in median values:
core2 +87.5 ms
corei7-avx +79.7 ms
core-avx-i+257.2 ms

> In any case, these results are too marginal to warrant any code change
> since they're basically disappearing in noise.


Currently, the 'core2' optimization is included in as an option for a CPU Family.  In the case of core-avx-i, I am showing an improvement of ~3x over that.  And in the corei7-avx case, the improvement is approximately equal to it.  I don't understand why these wouldn't be considered value-added since they preform at least as good as the option already included.

Thank you for the consideration and suggestions.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-09 12:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-05 22:09 [PATCH] Additional compiler optimization options John
2012-12-05 22:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2012-12-05 23:00   ` John
2012-12-05 23:08     ` Borislav Petkov
2012-12-08 12:13       ` [PATCH] Expand CPU compiler options John
2012-12-09 11:18         ` Borislav Petkov
2012-12-09 12:08           ` John [this message]
2012-12-09 12:29             ` Borislav Petkov
2012-12-09 12:59               ` John
2012-12-09 13:24                 ` Borislav Petkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1355054935.13447.YahooMailNeo@web140004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com \
    --to=da_audiophile@yahoo.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®