* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-08-11 13:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-11 13:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-08-11 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization,
| |needs-bisection
Target| |x86_64-*-*
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=110972
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Probably the same cause as PR110972, but I can only confirm a 2.5% regression
on Zen2 due to r14-3078-gd9f3ea61fe36e2. Looks like the bigger regression was
for generic? I can confirm a 5.5% regression for -Ofast generic on Zen2 due to
r14-3078-gd9f3ea61fe36e2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-11 13:33 ` [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-08-11 13:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-24 15:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-08-11 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2023-08-11
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For generic the biggest difference is in calc_pair_energy_fullelect:
Samples: 1M of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 2222678752091
Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Symbol
6.68% 132170 namd_peak.amd64 namd_peak.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_energy_fullelect #
6.16% 121796 namd_base.amd64 namd_base.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_fullelect #
6.16% 121875 namd_peak.amd64 namd_peak.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_fullelect #
5.98% 118457 namd_base.amd64 namd_base.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_energy_fullelect #
5.33% 105302 namd_peak.amd64 namd_peak.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair #
5.19% 102880 namd_peak.amd64 namd_peak.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_energy #
5.15% 101892 namd_base.amd64 namd_base.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_energy_merge_fullelect #
5.15% 102119 namd_peak.amd64 namd_peak.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_energy_merge_fullelect #
5.02% 99415 namd_base.amd64 namd_base.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_energy #
5.00% 98964 namd_peak.amd64 namd_peak.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_merge_fullelect #
4.98% 98257 namd_base.amd64 namd_base.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair #
4.90% 96943 namd_base.amd64 namd_base.amd64-m64-mine [.]
ComputeNonbondedUtil::calc_pair_merge_fullelect
it's again very difficult to pin-point an offender :/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-11 13:33 ` [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-11 13:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-08-24 15:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-25 11:52 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-08-24 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fkastl at suse dot cz,
| |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
There was also a 7.7% regression on zen3 with generic march (these measurements
are without LTO):
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=466.120.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-08-24 15:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-08-25 11:52 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
2023-08-29 9:11 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fkastl at suse dot cz @ 2023-08-25 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
--- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl <fkastl at suse dot cz> ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> There was also a 7.7% regression on zen3 with generic march (these
> measurements are without LTO):
>
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=466.120.0
I think this slowdown is caused by the r14-3078-gd9f3ea61fe36e2 commit that
Richard mentioned. I measured it on another zen3 machine and got ~7% slowdown.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-08-25 11:52 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
@ 2023-08-29 9:11 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-29 9:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-08-29 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Note that some (not all?) namd scores seems to be back to pre-regression
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=798.120.0
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=791.120.0
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=299.120.0
between 2a0b19f52596d75b (2023-08-07 00:16) and b0894a12e9e04dea (2023-08-10
13:29)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-08-29 9:11 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-08-29 9:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-29 9:59 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
2023-08-29 14:43 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-08-29 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Likely r14-3440-ge80f7c13f64e10 fixed it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-08-29 9:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-08-29 9:59 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
2023-08-29 14:43 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fkastl at suse dot cz @ 2023-08-29 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
--- Comment #7 from Filip Kastl <fkastl at suse dot cz> ---
Not all measurements are back to pre-regression. The Ofast zen3 generic score
that Martin mentioned
(https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=466.120.0) is still
higher than before.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/110973] 9% 444.namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17)
2023-08-10 14:47 [Bug middle-end/110973] New: 9% namd regression between g:c2a447d840476dbd (2023-08-03 18:47) and g:73da34a538ddc2ad (2023-08-09 20:17) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2023-08-29 9:59 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
@ 2023-08-29 14:43 ` fkastl at suse dot cz
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fkastl at suse dot cz @ 2023-08-29 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110973
--- Comment #8 from Filip Kastl <fkastl at suse dot cz> ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #7)
> Not all measurements are back to pre-regression. The Ofast zen3 generic
> score that Martin mentioned
> (https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=466.120.0) is
> still higher than before.
There's also these two:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=789.120.0
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=300.120.0
And these benchmarks haven't run yet since the commit that Richard thinks fixes
the regression:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=785.120.0
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=790.120.0
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=288.120.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread