public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "prop_design at protonmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/53957] Polyhedron 11 benchmark: MP_PROP_DESIGN twice as long as other compiler
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:09:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-53957-4-lGFzerhYrr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-53957-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957

--- Comment #24 from Anthony <prop_design at protonmail dot com> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #23)
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020, prop_design at protonmail dot com wrote:
> 
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
> > 
> > --- Comment #22 from Anthony <prop_design at protonmail dot com> ---
> > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21)
> > > Another question: Is there anything left to be done with the
> > > vectorizer, or could we remove that dependency?
> > 
> > thanks for looking into this again for me. i'm surprised it worked the same on
> > Linux, but knowing that, at least helps debug this issue some more. I'm not
> > sure about the vectorizer question, maybe that question was intended for
> > someone else. the runtimes seem good as is though. i doubt the
> > auto-parallelization will add much speed. but it's an interesting feature that
> > i've always hoped would work. i've never got it to work though. the only code
> > that did actually implement something was Intel Fortran. it implemented one
> > trivial loop, but it slowed the code down instead of speeding it up. the output
> > from gfortran shows more loops it wants to run in parallel. they aren't
> > important ones. but something would be better than nothing. if it slowed the
> > code down, i would just not use it.
> 
> GCC adds runtime checks for a minimal number of iterations before
> dispatching to the parallelized code - I guess we simply never hit
> the threshold.  This is configurable via --param parloops-min-per-thread,
> the default is 100, the default number of threads is determined the same
> as for OpenMP so you can probably tune that via OMP_NUM_THREADS.

thanks for that tip. i tried changing the parloops parameters but no luck. the
only difference was the max thread use went from 2 to 3. core use was the same.

i added the following an some variations of these:

--param parloops-min-per-thread=2 (the default was 100 like you said) --param
parloops-chunk-size=1 (the default was zero so i removed this parameter later)
--param parloops-schedule=auto (tried all options except guided, the default is
static)

i was able to check that they were set via:

--help=param -Q

some other things i tried was adding -mthreads and removing -static. but so far
no luck. i also tried using -mthreads instead of -pthread.

i should make clear i'm testing PROP_DESIGN_MAPS, not MP_PROP_DESIGN.
MP_PROP_DESIGN is ancient and the added benchmarking loops were messing with
the ability of the optimizer to auto-parallelize (in the past at least).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-06-29 14:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-13 20:00 [Bug middle-end/53957] New: " burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-18 11:26 ` [Bug middle-end/53957] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-18 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-18 12:09 ` [Bug fortran/53957] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-18 12:46 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-18 13:18 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-18 14:05 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-18 14:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-26  9:59 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-26 10:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-11 15:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-16 22:53 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-10  4:41 ` prop_design at yahoo dot com
2013-06-10 17:44 ` prop_design at yahoo dot com
2013-06-22 13:04 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-06-23  5:25 ` prop_design at yahoo dot com
2020-06-27 23:34 ` prop_design at protonmail dot com
2020-06-28 10:49 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-28 11:03 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-28 15:40 ` prop_design at protonmail dot com
2020-06-29  9:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-29 14:09 ` prop_design at protonmail dot com [this message]
2020-07-29 22:25 ` prop_design at protonmail dot com

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=bug-53957-4-lGFzerhYrr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).