On 6/24/21 6:16 PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
[w/o] Base Base Base Benchmarks Copies Run Time Rate
500.perlbench_r 32 584 87.2 * 502.gcc_r 32 503 90.2 * 505.mcf_r 32 745 69.4 * 520.omnetpp_r 32 1031 40.7 * 523.xalancbmk_r 32 597 56.6 * 525.x264_r 1 -- CE 531.deepsjeng_r 32 336 109 * 541.leela_r 32 556 95.4 * 548.exchange2_r 32 513 163 * 557.xz_r 32 530 65.2 * Est. SPECrate2017_int_base 80.3
[w] Base Base Base Benchmarks Copies Run Time Rate
500.perlbench_r 32 580 87.8 (+0.688%) * 502.gcc_r 32 477 95.1 (+5.432%) * 505.mcf_r 32 644 80.3 (+13.574%) * 520.omnetpp_r 32 942 44.6 (+9.58%) * 523.xalancbmk_r 32 560 60.4 (+6.714%%) * 525.x264_r 1 -- CE 531.deepsjeng_r 32 337 109 (+0.000%) * 541.leela_r 32 554 95.6 (+0.210%) * 548.exchange2_r 32 515 163 (+0.000%) * 557.xz_r 32 524 66.0 (+1.227%) * Est. SPECrate2017_int_base 83.7 (+4.062%)
You have 24 cores right? So this is the case with a little bit of overload? It is nice we are also seeing improvement here.
On this machine there is 4 numa and 32 cores for each numa. We have two types of machine, Barry's result is from 24 cores per numa machine and mine is from 32 cores per numa machine.
Then this is a bit odd as we should have 1 task per core for both vanilla and patched kernel and the performance should be similar.
Tim