This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] New numbers in the benchtests.
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>
- To: Ben Woodard <woodard at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:13:39 +0530
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] New numbers in the benchtests.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20171215042058.23705-1-woodard@redhat.com>
On Friday 15 December 2017 09:50 AM, Ben Woodard wrote:
> diff --git a/benchtests/exp-inputs b/benchtests/exp-inputs
> index aff3fb42f1..b94e19c4f5 100644
> --- a/benchtests/exp-inputs
> +++ b/benchtests/exp-inputs
> @@ -587,3 +587,12 @@
> 0x1.0000015853da7p0
> 0x1.0000098e5e007p0
> 0x1.0000099a1ac59p0
> +
> +# Contributed based on customer reports
> +# Ben Woodard woodard@redhat.com
> +## name: redhat-slow-customer-cases
> +0x1.0p-53
> +## name: redhat-fast-customer-cases
> +0x1.0p-52
> +0x1.0p+0
> +0x1.999999999999Ap-4
Paul McGehearty has re-implemented exp which will likely change the
nature of these numbers. What it means is that the slow path will be
gone for exp. I suggest re-testing with the new implementation because
we will probably just end up dropping all of these partitions and you
can then just add these inputs as is.
> diff --git a/benchtests/pow-inputs b/benchtests/pow-inputs
> index 78f8ac73d5..cea50edea7 100644
> --- a/benchtests/pow-inputs
> +++ b/benchtests/pow-inputs
> @@ -509,3 +509,15 @@
> 0x1.f8b79758182dap-884, 0x1.ed6174093fca4p-6
> 0x1.fa5c677254961p133, -0x1.c91962524971ep-1
> 0x1.ff0544adacb78p649, -0x1.6c17c3a7210e2p-1
> +
> +
> +# Contributed based on customer reports
> +# Ben Woodard woodard@redhat.com
> +## name: redhat-slow-customer-cases
> +0x1.fffffffffffffp-1, 0x1.8p+0
> +0x1.ffffffffffffdp-1, 0x1.8p+0
> +0x1.ffffffffffff7p-1, 0x1.8p+0
> +## name: redhat-fast-customer-cases
> +0x1.ffffffffffffep-1, 0x1.8p+0
> +0x1.ffffffffffffcp-1, 0x1.8p+0
> +0x1.999999999999ap-4, 0x1.8p+0
>
Why do these inputs need to be in a different namespace? They should go
into one of the existing namespaces, i.e. 768bits, 240bits, etc. Their
performance relative to the existing namespaces should give you an
indication where they fit in. If you want these inputs to look distinct
then you could add a comment indicating that these inputs came in from
RH; comments are just a single #.
Thanks,
Siddhesh