On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 07:16:59AM -0700, Bill Broadley wrote: > Interesting, the woodcrest latencies are much higher than I've seen > elsewhere. It's been awhile since I looked at the lmbench source, > I seem to recall it used to do a negative stride, but then one of the > the architectures detected it and successfully prefetched it.
Yes, and after I complained about HP publishing lmbench numbers that were broken, it turned out that the next version of lmbench already used a random stride instead of negative. So you're OK if you use a recent version. > I'm guessing the best woodcrest stream numbers will be: > * Pathscale's compiler with -mp -O3 or possibly -mp -Ofast Those options are a good start, but generally you can get a few % more by playing around. Our pathopt2 tool can be used, or you can look at recent stream submissions from us (none for Woodcrest yet, I think.) -- greg _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
