On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:43:47 GMT, iaroslavski <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Laurent Bourgès has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> updated comments (v23.08) > >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Just trying to understand: is there a reason to use >> `DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForParallel.java` and >> `DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForAll.java`? >> >> Would it not be sufficient to do the following two runs: >> >> 1. Baseline (Stock JDK) vs. AVX512 sort for`sort()`and `parallelSort()` ? >> 2. AVX512 sort vs. Radix sort for `sort()` and `parallelSort()` ? >> >> Thanks, Vamsi > > Hi Vamsi (@vamsi-parasa)! > > I appreciate if you kindly agree to help with perf runs on your environment. > Results from your runs will help us to detect the impact of Radix sort in > *vectorized* sorting, this is very important topic. > > Interesting comparisons are: > > 1. AVX512 sort (your implementation) vs. DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForParallel > (contains AVX512 + radix for parallel sort) > > https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForParallel.java > > 2. AVX512 sort (your implementation) vs. DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForAll > (contains AVX512 + radix for all) > > https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForAll.java > > If you add the 3-rd comparison > baseline (stock JDK) vs. AVX512 sort - it would be great also! > > Please use this JMH test to run on: > > * all sizes > * all inputs > * int type only > * sort() and parallelSort() > > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/42e17e45b1adc4d77ba5549770ce591d96d4b1fe/test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/util/ArraysSort.java > > Looking forward the results, > Vladimir Hi Vladimir (@iaroslavski), Kindly give me some time to do the JMH performance runs as I am currently occupied with various tasks related to the closing of the AVX512 sort PR. Thanks, Vamsi ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13568#issuecomment-1730493823
