on 15/04/2010 16:23 Adam Vande More said the following:
> Is is possible to add a tunable to the scheduler for it's aggressiveness
> in switching cores?
No idea; not a scheduler person.
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http:/
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> This is a good point.
> But on the other hand, it means that our scheduler doesn't do a perfect job
> here. BTW, I use ULE.
> My observation is that when a number of CPU-intensive long running
> processes is
> less than or equal to number of
on 14/04/2010 20:47 Adam Vande More said the following:
> I'm no expert Andriy, but it seems like if gotoblas
> implemented some of the FreeBSD optimizations then we'd be in the same
> ballpark.
This is a good point.
But on the other hand, it means that our scheduler doesn't do a perfect job
here.
4.289174
> n: 3600
> time : 92.195022 or 25.105942
> Mflops : 37177.621122
> n: 3700
> time : 97.718841 or 25.434243
> Mflops : 39841.319494
> n: 3800
> time : 105.740463 or 27.414029
> Mflops : 40042.592613
> n: 3900
> time : 113.980157 or 29.678505
> Mflops : 39984.6
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> From: Pieter de Goeje
> Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance
> on FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:05:18 +0200
>
>> I think the best test would be to run
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> > >> Hi Andry and Adam
> > >>
> > >> My test again. No desktop, etc. I just r
on 15/04/2010 04:20 Maho NAKATA said the following:
> Hi Andriy and Adam,
>
> I did also the same thing as suggested.
>
> my conclusion: on Core i7 920, 2.66GHz, TurboBoost on, HyperThreading off,
So HyperThreading is off.
> then, pinned to each core like following
>
> % procstat -t 1408
>
From: Pieter de Goeje
Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on
FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:05:18 +0200
> I think the best test would be to run a statically compiled linux binary on
> FreeBSD. That way the compiler settin
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> >> Hi Andry and Adam
> >>
> >> My test again. No desktop, etc. I just run dgemm.
> >> Contrary to Adam's result, Hyper Threading make
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Maho NAKATA wrote:
>> Hi Andry and Adam
>>
>> My test again. No desktop, etc. I just run dgemm.
>> Contrary to Adam's result, Hyper Threading makes the performance worse.
>> all tests are done on Core i7 920
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> Hi Andry and Adam
>
> My test again. No desktop, etc. I just run dgemm.
> Contrary to Adam's result, Hyper Threading makes the performance worse.
> all tests are done on Core i7 920 @ 2.67GHz. (TurboBoost @2.8GHz)
>
> Turbo Boost off, Hyper thr
Hi Adam,
From: Adam Vande More
Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on
FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:47:31 -0500
> Since this is a full fledged desktop environment, 90% utilization seems
> pretty good.
No, I don't thi
66 or 42.380653
Mflops : 40208.611317
n: 4500
time : 175.930335 or 45.422572
Mflops : 40132.139469
Thanks
From: Adam Vande More
Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on
FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:47:31 -0500
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at
opps I missed this e-mail...
From: Adam Vande More
Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on
FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:45:04 -0500
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Adam Vande More
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
lops : 39984.635420
n: 4000
time : 122.941569 or 31.946174
Mflops : 40077.412531
n: 4100
---DETAILS---
From: Adam Vande More
Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on
FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:34:45 -0500
>> > time : 162.4
From: Andriy Gapon
Subject: Re: How to reproduce: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on
FreeBSD 8/amd64, Corei7 920
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:19:13 +0300
> on 14/04/2010 02:21 Maho NAKATA said the following:
>> 2. install ports/math/gotoblas (manual download required)
>>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 14/04/2010 19:45 Adam Vande More said the following:
> >
> > also if I run cpuset on the dgemm then the utilization is basically at
> > the theoretical max for one core so at least that part is working.
>
> You can also try procstat -t t
on 14/04/2010 19:45 Adam Vande More said the following:
>
> also if I run cpuset on the dgemm then the utilization is basically at
> the theoretical max for one core so at least that part is working.
You can also try procstat -t to find out thread IDs and cpuset -t to pin
the
threads to the cor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Adam Vande More wrote:
>
>
>
> That's about 67% utilization, turning off HTT drops it more. HTT on the
> newer cores is good, not bad.
>
Well that was completely contrarty to some tests I'd run when I first got
the cpu.
With HTT off:
n: 3000
time : 44.705516 o
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 14/04/2010 02:21 Maho NAKATA said the following:
> > 4. run dgemm.
> > % ./dgemm
> > n: 3000
> > time : 134.648208 or 16.910525
> > Mflops : 31943.419695
> > n: 3100
> > time : 148.122279 or 18.615284
> > Mflops : 32017.357408
> > n: 3200
on 14/04/2010 02:21 Maho NAKATA said the following:
> 4. run dgemm.
> % ./dgemm
> n: 3000
> time : 134.648208 or 16.910525
> Mflops : 31943.419695
> n: 3100
> time : 148.122279 or 18.615284
> Mflops : 32017.357408
> n: 3200
> time : 162.45 or 20.430651
> Mflops : 32087.318295
> n: 3300
> ti
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 15:19:13 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 14/04/2010 02:21 Maho NAKATA said the following:
> > 2. install ports/math/gotoblas (manual download required)
> > make install
>
> Do you know how gotoblas on Linux was obtained?
> Was it built from source?
> Has it come pre-packaged?
on 14/04/2010 02:21 Maho NAKATA said the following:
> 2. install ports/math/gotoblas (manual download required)
> make install
Do you know how gotoblas on Linux was obtained?
Was it built from source?
Has it come pre-packaged?
If so, can you find out details of its build configuration?
Thanks!
Hi all, thanks for showing interest in this issue.
I uploaded my test code so that you can test on your PC.
Following is the instruction.
1. download my source codes.
http://people.freebsd.org/~maho/dgemm/Makefile
http://people.freebsd.org/~maho/dgemm/dgemm.cpp
check md5.
% md5 Makefile dgemm.cp
on 13/04/2010 02:33 Maho NAKATA said the following:
> From: Andriy Gapon
>> Another question is what compilers (what versions of GCC) were used on both
>> system to compile the program?
>
> Hi
>
> on Ubuntu $ gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured
> with: ../src/configu
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Andrew Snow wrote:
>
> The statements about the scheduler flipping between cores is also somewhat
> false, ULE does the right thing now for long-running computational threads.
>
> Furthermore, I can't see how a Gflops benchmark which fits in the CPU cache
> has a
The statements about the scheduler flipping between cores is also
somewhat false, ULE does the right thing now for long-running
computational threads.
Furthermore, I can't see how a Gflops benchmark which fits in the CPU
cache has anything to do with the memory architecture of the operating
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> Hi FreeBSD developers,
> [the original article in Japanese can be found at
> http://blog.goo.ne.jp/nakatamaho/e/b5f6fbc3cc6e1ac4947463eb1ca4eb0a ]
>
> *Abstract*
> I compared the peak performance of FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 and Ubuntu 9.10 amd64
> u
Maho NAKATA writes:
> From: Michael Poole
> Subject: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on FreeBSD 8/amd64,
> Corei7 920
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:06:55 -0400
>
>> Nakata-san's theoretical performance numbers assume 4 to 4.2 operations
>> per core pe
Hi Bruce, many thanks.
I like FreeBSD, esp. ports, since I'm have been a ports committer for 8 years,
so I'll do what I can do...First step might be reproducible results and provide
better analysis for ports/math/ports/gotoblas.
thanks
-- Nakata Maho http://accc.riken.jp/maho/ , http://ja.openoff
Hi,
Many thanks for interested in.
I used following program to major the FLOPS. I'll provide more in details.
you many need but you can change dgemm_f77 to something else to link
agianst GotoBLAS (ports/math/gotoblas). I think you can use math/atlas but
it takes too long time to compile...
---
#i
Hi Andriy and Jeremy
In my case,
% sysctl vm.pmap.pg_ps_enabled
vm.pmap.pg_ps_enabled: 1
thanks a lot!
From: Jeremy Chadwick
Subject: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on FreeBSD 8/amd64,
Corei7 920
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:00:23 -0700
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:41:35PM +0
From: Andriy Gapon
Subject: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on FreeBSD 8/amd64,
Corei7 920
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:49:24 +0300
> on 12/04/2010 17:41 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>> It would also be get good to learn more about your program.
>> How much
From: Michael Poole
Subject: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on FreeBSD 8/amd64,
Corei7 920
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:06:55 -0400
> Nakata-san's theoretical performance numbers assume 4 to 4.2 operations
> per core per cycle at the nominal (2.66 GHz, non-TurboBoost)
, tho)
Thanks
From: Antony Mawer
Subject: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on FreeBSD 8/amd64,
Corei7 920
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:58:17 +1000
> This may well be the same sort of issue that was discussed in this thread
> here:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/piper
Hi Bruce,
From: Bruce Simpson
Subject: Re: Only 70% of theoretical peak performance on FreeBSD 8/amd64,
Corei7 920
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:49:14 +0100
> So, where's the profiling to discover why this is the case?
Ok I'll provide better documentation so that everyone can test it
Hi all,
There's a port archivers/pbzip2, and I am inclined to believe this is a
good benchmark for multi-core performance in real-world usage (with an
appropriate input data set).
BZIP2 is a compression algorithm which is readily applicable to
multicore, because of the nature in which its wo
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:41:35PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Perhaps, he talks about support of large pages (2M) and related improvements
> in
> TLB performance. If so, he (and you) may read about 'superpages' feature of
> FreeBSD.
> I am not sure if it is enabled by default in 8.0, you can c
on 12/04/2010 17:41 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> It would also be get good to learn more about your program.
> How much memory does it typically use, how does it allocate it?
> Is it single-threaded or not? If not, how many threads does it have and what
> do
> they do, how do they communica
on 12/04/2010 07:12 Maho NAKATA said the following:
> Hi FreeBSD developers,
> [the original article in Japanese can be found at
> http://blog.goo.ne.jp/nakatamaho/e/b5f6fbc3cc6e1ac4947463eb1ca4eb0a ]
>
> *Abstract*
> I compared the peak performance of FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 and Ubuntu 9.10 amd64
> u
Antony Mawer writes:
> This may well be the same sort of issue that was discussed in this thread
> here:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2010-March/031004.html
>
> In short, the Core i7 CPUs have a feature called "TurboBoost" where
> the clock speed of one or more cores
This may well be the same sort of issue that was discussed in this thread here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2010-March/031004.html
In short, the Core i7 CPUs have a feature called "TurboBoost" where
the clock speed of one or more cores is boosted when other cores are
id
Of course, what would be helpful is actually figuring out what is
going on rather than some conjecture. :)
With what he said, tweaking memory allocation under FreeBSD and/or
linux would change the performance characteristics and either validate
or disprove his assumptions?
Adrian
On 12 April 20
On 04/12/10 05:12, Maho NAKATA wrote:
*Abstract*
I compared the peak performance of FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 and Ubuntu 9.10 amd64
using dgemm
(a linear algebra routine, matrix-matrix multiplication).
I obtained only 70% of theoretical peak performance on FreeBSD 8/amd64 and
almost 95% on Ubuntu 9.10 /
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Maho NAKATA wrote:
> Hi FreeBSD developers,
> [the original article in Japanese can be found at
> http://blog.goo.ne.jp/nakatamaho/e/b5f6fbc3cc6e1ac4947463eb1ca4eb0a ]
>
> *Abstract*
> I compared the peak performance of FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 and Ubuntu 9.10 amd64
> us
Hi FreeBSD developers,
[the original article in Japanese can be found at
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/nakatamaho/e/b5f6fbc3cc6e1ac4947463eb1ca4eb0a ]
*Abstract*
I compared the peak performance of FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 and Ubuntu 9.10 amd64
using dgemm
(a linear algebra routine, matrix-matrix multiplication
46 matches
Mail list logo
