public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs
[not found] <bug-90128-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2022-01-21 17:19 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-18 17:17 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-01-21 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We still regress, according to LNT 8% on zen2:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=335.437.0&plot.1=309.437.0&plot.2=346.437.0&plot.3=276.437.0&plot.4=398.437.0&plot.5=417.437.0&plot.6=295.437.0&
and 12% on zen3:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=554.437.0&plot.1=539.437.0&plot.2=562.437.0&plot.3=493.437.0&plot.4=520.437.0&plot.5=508.437.0&plot.6=471.437.0&
(versions we regress against are represented by dots)
and 9.40% against zen1:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=148.437.0&plot.1=59.437.0&plot.2=76.437.0&plot.3=260.437.0&plot.4=361.437.0&plot.5=454.437.0&plot.6=33.437.0&
However, while my independent measurements confirmed the zen2 regression, I dod
not see the zen3 regression (I have not independently benchmarked zen1).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs
[not found] <bug-90128-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2022-01-21 17:19 ` [Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-01-18 17:17 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-01-18 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128
Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #10)
> We still regress, according to LNT 8% on zen2:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=335.437.0&plot.
> 1=309.437.0&plot.2=346.437.0&plot.3=276.437.0&plot.4=398.437.0&plot.5=417.
> 437.0&plot.6=295.437.0&
>
> and 12% on zen3:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=554.437.0&plot.
> 1=539.437.0&plot.2=562.437.0&plot.3=493.437.0&plot.4=520.437.0&plot.5=508.
> 437.0&plot.6=471.437.0&
> (versions we regress against are represented by dots)
>
> and 9.40% against zen1:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=148.437.0&plot.1=59.
> 437.0&plot.2=76.437.0&plot.3=260.437.0&plot.4=361.437.0&plot.5=454.437.
> 0&plot.6=33.437.0&
>
> However, while my independent measurements confirmed the zen2 regression, I
> dod not see the zen3 regression (I have not independently benchmarked zen1).
According to the first two links above (LNT no longer has a zen1 machine), the
problem has been fixed over the GCC 13 development cycle.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-18 17:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-90128-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2022-01-21 17:19 ` [Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-18 17:17 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
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).