Re: GMP 6.2.1 Aborting when running tuneup program in one.cold()
Ciao Simon, Il 2021-10-20 16:09 Simon Sobisch ha scritto: Questions: * Should I care running tuneup at all? The application does some heavy computations with it in the range +-9 (mostly multiply and divide [often by 10] and 9 fits in 63 bits, correct? For that range, on a 64-bits CPU, the native integer types should be enough. The manual, with "extremely large numbers", means much larger bit-sizes. You probably don't need tuneup at all. Moreover, the sources of GMP already contain pre-tuned parameters for many platforms. They are automatically used by the typical ./condigure&& check building process. So that tuning is, in most of the cases, superfluous. * As the output of the tuneup utility is different each time and the docs at https://gmplib.org/manual/Performance-optimization are more spare than for other parts: Should I run it multiple times and then use the average? Some thresholds may have a large range of tolerance, some doesn't. In any case, a collection of parameters needs to be coherent. So my answer is: use the results from a single run. Ĝis, m ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
Re: GMP 6.2.1 Aborting when running tuneup program in one.cold()
Simon Sobisch writes: Am 20.10.2021 um 16:19 schrieb Torbjörn Granlund: > When tuneup cannot measure things accurately, it bails out. That's interesting. Is there any thing I can do to help tuneup measure things accurately? Make sure your system is idle except for the tuneup process. Can you please add that important information (abort of the program is no bug, just use the non-optimized version) to the documentation https://gmplib.org/manual/Performance-optimization ideally together with the answer to the related questions "What should -f NNN" relate to?" and "Should I manually build the average" (if this isn't an effect of "not accurately measured")? If we find time, perhaps. Running the tuneup program and make use of its results is mainly intended for GMP devs. -- Torbjörn Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622 ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
Re: GMP 6.2.1 Aborting when running tuneup program in one.cold()
Thanks for the prompt answer! Am 20.10.2021 um 16:19 schrieb Torbjörn Granlund: When tuneup cannot measure things accurately, it bails out. That's interesting. Is there any thing I can do to help tuneup measure things accurately? Can you please add that important information (abort of the program is no bug, just use the non-optimized version) to the documentation https://gmplib.org/manual/Performance-optimization ideally together with the answer to the related questions "What should -f NNN" relate to?" and "Should I manually build the average" (if this isn't an effect of "not accurately measured")? > No bug. Maybe the tuneup program could also hint this at start (additional to the doc change)? Something like ./tuneup Try finding optimal parameters for ./mpn/x86_64/skylake/gmp-mparam.h If this is not possible this program will abort, which is no bug, and you should use the untuned version. Using: CPU cycle counter, supplemented by microsecond getrusage() speed_precision 1, speed_unittime 3.34e-10 secs, CPU freq 2992.97 MHz DEFAULT_MAX_SIZE 1000, fft_max_size 5 Simon ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
