Forum > Discussion Forum
Better sleep on Windows - new round
Mike:
Not much different.
Just slower.
WU : AR075.wu
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r3330.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 474.039 secs
CPU 228.042 secs
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r3500.exe :
Elapsed 543.290 secs, speedup: -14.61% ratio: 0.87x
CPU 194.861 secs, speedup: 14.55% ratio: 1.17x
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_Sleep0.exe :
Elapsed 495.577 secs, speedup: -4.54% ratio: 0.96x
CPU 414.791 secs, speedup: -81.89% ratio: 0.55x
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_Sleep1.exe :
Elapsed 492.114 secs, speedup: -3.81% ratio: 0.96x
CPU 297.541 secs, speedup: -30.48% ratio: 0.77x
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_STT.exe :
Elapsed 483.082 secs, speedup: -1.91% ratio: 0.98x
CPU 415.961 secs, speedup: -82.41% ratio: 0.55x
WU : PG1327_v7.wu
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r3330.exe -verb -nog :
Elapsed 62.481 secs
CPU 36.145 secs
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_r3500.exe :
Elapsed 64.840 secs, speedup: -3.78% ratio: 0.96x
CPU 38.345 secs, speedup: -6.09% ratio: 0.94x
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_Sleep0.exe :
Elapsed 63.978 secs, speedup: -2.40% ratio: 0.98x
CPU 58.812 secs, speedup: -62.71% ratio: 0.61x
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_Sleep1.exe :
Elapsed 64.277 secs, speedup: -2.87% ratio: 0.97x
CPU 44.944 secs, speedup: -24.34% ratio: 0.80x
MB8_win_x86_SSE2_OpenCL_ATi_HD5_STT.exe :
Elapsed 65.041 secs, speedup: -4.10% ratio: 0.96x
CPU 59.062 secs, speedup: -63.40% ratio: 0.61x
Raistmer:
r3500:class SleepQuantum: total=2.8579862, N=3, <>=0.95266207, min=0.93661302 max=0.97626472
Sleep0: class SleepQuantum: total=4.8358912, N=2704, <>=0.0017884213, min=0.00054984231 max=0.4228799
Sleep1: class SleepQuantum: total=2148.8459, N=1791, <>=1.1998023, min=0.86739361 max=3.0483601
STT: class SleepQuantum: total=3.9076965, N=2704, <>=0.001445154, min=0.0004952898 max=0.0027276319
The same question. CPU idle or busy? Or, maybe, single CPU core free only?
Sleep behavior strongly depends from host load that's I always ask for full description of test conditions.
And for prev run w/o sleep enabled - no explanation why these builds consume much more CPU :o
Mike:
--- Quote from: Raistmer on 23 Aug 2016, 02:36:34 am ---r3500:class SleepQuantum: total=2.8579862, N=3, <>=0.95266207, min=0.93661302 max=0.97626472
Sleep0: class SleepQuantum: total=4.8358912, N=2704, <>=0.0017884213, min=0.00054984231 max=0.4228799
Sleep1: class SleepQuantum: total=2148.8459, N=1791, <>=1.1998023, min=0.86739361 max=3.0483601
STT: class SleepQuantum: total=3.9076965, N=2704, <>=0.001445154, min=0.0004952898 max=0.0027276319
The same question. CPU idle or busy? Or, maybe, single CPU core free only?
Sleep behavior strongly depends from host load that's I always ask for full description of test conditions.
And for prev run w/o sleep enabled - no explanation why these builds consume much more CPU :o
--- End quote ---
Yep 7 cores were in use.
Raistmer:
That shows the need of fixed amount sleep in case of underloaded CPU.
GPU app has bigger priority so, if some free CPU resource awailable, it will be scheduled for exection there.
What strange is no differencies in STT and Sleep(0) behavior. From what I read on main forums Sleep(0) should return to the same process immediately so just spin with full CPU busy while STT should give up CPU slice always(wrong, only if there are ready threads on the same CPU). So, in SleepQuantum counter it should have bigger mean value (hard to imagine that with absolute most of 2704 occurencies process was exactly at the end of its current time slice). Nevertheless once can see VERY close mean times (<>) for Sleep(0) and STT. Strange. If so I don't see any advantage of STT at all :-\
[NB: Windows time slice ~10-15 ms and STT mean is 0.0014 ms]
Mike:
I have to remove r3500 from this bench because it doesn`t even start with all cores in use.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version