From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD0D385ED4B for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:49:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9AD0D385ED4B Received: from mail-qt1-f199.google.com (mail-qt1-f199.google.com [209.85.160.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-16-kgb73FXkOImllt5g6u2x-g-1; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 12:49:43 -0400 X-MC-Unique: kgb73FXkOImllt5g6u2x-g-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f199.google.com with SMTP id m13so10850756qth.16 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 09:49:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=F1TmZvBQVi5aoDd9kkoYFkOO1QaMSuDBFaFMNptZLKw=; b=F+f1rVkf5+bn2gWopqXMTJEfEoTbJs6pNIfcKMCM/pic1lxZ3hHRQojt6TFNaseGfe MysX9EEoRGrcOlWb17ybxUstcJtoGqn4BByARWc7zXea+ToKQyTXmL8zoxgPWArqLfup 7XPIQPLAlHEXTGyz3mUA4pDV2GU+vh+9PCsq6jkdhv0z2MRAVUXFgE6GxzG/u3tp2jfb cZ43E2eTOo36aUZIDUllLsyHamdJ64nfLag5+0fCiwilJLMzxKBSMienYVJxNv7HNqTS VJJe3A5wz50MGtyUdyADUv6JDRmszF6lgBLQ4z4Fr04e4LK2U/CH4wjQ4RJvsweBDbiJ ICjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531J70E8xkpfD4Roa7fYzDasBfSAd8kJcgmkPQS4VVkkkdzK/HzD /MFXFHApyl2vVQfsciOQTjV46bptkhG/EEzv19Dsp7cx21S7z6usOtTUT2f2s37JhpnprJGSksg ojMiSjOJgJcQuPllISBH6 X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1088:: with SMTP id a8mr21493369qtj.90.1596559782653; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 09:49:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQmWVEkD6Ppn14ZPcUVPOrsX5HT0tasV8D1qj0Sf0HH/5tD3gWnCtsQtZsiCZzrKZFEq4uVg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1088:: with SMTP id a8mr21493350qtj.90.1596559782444; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 09:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.16] (198-84-214-74.cpe.teksavvy.com. [198.84.214.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d196sm21094009qkg.96.2020.08.04.09.49.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2020 09:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: improve documentation of the 'name' directive and the 'workload' mechanism To: Paul Zimmermann , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: From: Carlos O'Donell Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:49:40 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:49:49 -0000 On 8/4/20 7:31 AM, Paul Zimmermann wrote: > Hi, > > here is a patch improving the 'name' directive and the 'workload' mechanism > (for "make bench"). Feedback is welcome. I will submit separately later on > some new workload traces for sin, exp, pow, sinf128, expf128, powf128. > > Paul Zimmermann Paul, This looks good and I've pushed this for glibc 2.32. Thanks. Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell > From b8ff91bf0bfb26114d1b4e5d30f210f41a4ff58d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Paul Zimmermann > Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 13:27:39 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] improve documentation of the 'name' directive and the > 'workload' mechanism > > --- > benchtests/README | 20 ++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/benchtests/README b/benchtests/README > index f440f3295a..44736d7e63 100644 > --- a/benchtests/README > +++ b/benchtests/README > @@ -125,17 +125,25 @@ math functions perform computations at different levels of precision (64-bit vs > performance of these functions. One could separate inputs for these domains in > the same file by using the `name' directive that looks something like this: > > - ##name: 240bit > + ##name: 240bits > > -See the pow-inputs file for an example of what such a partitioned input file > -would look like. > +All inputs after the ##name: 240bits directive and until the next `name' > +directive (or the end of file) are part of the "240bits" benchmark and > +will be output separately in benchtests/bench.out. See the pow-inputs file > +for an example of what such a partitioned input file would look like. > > -It is also possible to measure throughput of a (partial) trace extracted from > -a real workload. In this case the whole trace is iterated over multiple times > -rather than repeating every input multiple times. This can be done via: > +It is also possible to measure latency and reciprocal throughput of a > +(partial) trace extracted from a real workload. In this case the whole trace > +is iterated over multiple times rather than repeating every input multiple > +times. This can be done via: > > ##name: workload- > > +where is simply used to distinguish between different traces in the > +same file. To create such a trace, you can simply extract using printf() > +values uses for a specific application, or generate random values in some > +interval. See the expf-inputs file for an example of this workload mechanism. > + > Benchmark Sets: > ============== > > -- Cheers, Carlos.