On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:25 AM Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM Allan Sandfeld Jensen <li...@carewolf.com>
> wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018 16:57:56 CEST Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > so the situation improves but isn't fully fixed (STLF issues maybe?)
> > >
> > That raises the question if it helps in these cases even in -O3?
> That's a good question indeed. We might end up (partly) BB vectorizing
> loop bodies that we'd otherwise loop vectorize with SLP. Benchmarking
> with BB vectorization disabled at -O3+ isn't something I've done in the
> past. I'm now doing a 2-run with -march=haswell -Ofast
> [-fno-tree-slp-vectorize]
> for the FP benchmarks.
Base Base Base Peak Peak Peak
Benchmarks Ref. Run Time Ratio Ref. Run Time Ratio
-------------- ------ --------- --------- ------ --------- ---------
410.bwaves 13590 178 76.4 * 13590 180 75.5
S
410.bwaves 13590 180 75.6 S 13590 179 76.0
*
416.gamess 19580 604 32.4 S 19580 576 34.0
S
416.gamess 19580 604 32.4 * 19580 575 34.0
*
433.milc 9180 339 27.1 * 9180 345 26.6
S
433.milc 9180 343 26.7 S 9180 343 26.8
*
434.zeusmp 9100 234 38.9 * 9100 234 38.9
S
434.zeusmp 9100 234 38.8 S 9100 234 38.9
*
435.gromacs 7140 251 28.5 * 7140 251 28.4
*
435.gromacs 7140 252 28.3 S 7140 252 28.3
S
436.cactusADM 11950 278 43.0 S 11950 222 53.8
S
436.cactusADM 11950 223 53.7 * 11950 221 54.1
*
437.leslie3d 9400 214 43.9 * 9400 215 43.6
*
437.leslie3d 9400 217 43.3 S 9400 222 42.4
S
444.namd 8020 302 26.5 S 8020 303 26.5
S
444.namd 8020 302 26.6 * 8020 303 26.5
*
447.dealII 11440 259 44.2 * 11440 246 46.6
*
447.dealII 11440 259 44.1 S 11440 246 46.6
S
450.soplex 8340 219 38.0 * 8340 219 38.0
*
450.soplex 8340 221 37.7 S 8340 221 37.7
S
453.povray 5320 108 49.2 * 5320 109 48.7
S
453.povray 5320 108 49.1 S 5320 109 48.8
*
454.calculix 8250 270 30.6 * 8250 269 30.6
*
454.calculix 8250 271 30.5 S 8250 270 30.5
S
459.GemsFDTD 10610 308 34.5 S 10610 306 34.7
S
459.GemsFDTD 10610 306 34.7 * 10610 306 34.7
*
465.tonto 9840 428 23.0 S 9840 423 23.3
*
465.tonto 9840 426 23.1 * 9840 423 23.2
S
470.lbm 13740 253 54.4 S 13740 252 54.5
*
470.lbm 13740 252 54.5 * 13740 252 54.5
S
481.wrf 11170 265 42.1 * 11170 265 42.2
S
481.wrf 11170 266 42.1 S 11170 264 42.3
*
482.sphinx3 19490 401 48.6 * 19490 402 48.5
S
482.sphinx3 19490 405 48.1 S 19490 399 48.9
*
so we can indeed see similar detrimental effects on 416.gamess; 447.dealII
seems to improve with BB vectorization.
That means the 416.gamess slowdown is definitely worth investigating
since it reproduces with both AVX128 and AVX256 and with loop
vectorization. I'll open a bug for it.
> Note that there were some cases where disabling vectorization wholly
> improved things.
> > Anyway it doesn't look good for it. Did the binary size at least improve
> with
> > prefer-avx128, or was that also worse or insignificant?
> Similar to the AVX258 results. I guess where AVX256 applied we now simply
> do two vector ops with AVX128.
> Richard.
> > 'Allan
