[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2023-01-18 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128

Martin Jambor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor  ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #10)
> We still regress, according to LNT 8% on zen2:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=335.437.0&plot.
> 1=309.437.0&plot.2=346.437.0&plot.3=276.437.0&plot.4=398.437.0&plot.5=417.
> 437.0&plot.6=295.437.0&
> 
> and 12% on zen3:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=554.437.0&plot.
> 1=539.437.0&plot.2=562.437.0&plot.3=493.437.0&plot.4=520.437.0&plot.5=508.
> 437.0&plot.6=471.437.0&
> (versions we regress against are represented by dots)
> 
> and 9.40% against zen1:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=148.437.0&plot.1=59.
> 437.0&plot.2=76.437.0&plot.3=260.437.0&plot.4=361.437.0&plot.5=454.437.
> 0&plot.6=33.437.0&
> 
> However, while my independent measurements confirmed the zen2 regression, I
> dod not see the zen3 regression (I have not independently benchmarked zen1).

According to the first two links above (LNT no longer has a zen1 machine), the
problem has been fixed over the GCC 13 development cycle.

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2022-01-21 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128

--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor  ---
We still regress, according to LNT 8% on zen2:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=335.437.0&plot.1=309.437.0&plot.2=346.437.0&plot.3=276.437.0&plot.4=398.437.0&plot.5=417.437.0&plot.6=295.437.0&;

and 12% on zen3:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=554.437.0&plot.1=539.437.0&plot.2=562.437.0&plot.3=493.437.0&plot.4=520.437.0&plot.5=508.437.0&plot.6=471.437.0&;
(versions we regress against are represented by dots)

and 9.40% against zen1:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=148.437.0&plot.1=59.437.0&plot.2=76.437.0&plot.3=260.437.0&plot.4=361.437.0&plot.5=454.437.0&plot.6=33.437.0&;

However, while my independent measurements confirmed the zen2 regression, I dod
not see the zen3 regression (I have not independently benchmarked zen1).

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2019-04-17 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128

--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor  ---
I have only seen this when compiling with -march=native on Zen, but even at -O2
(which I overlooked yesterday, and which is also confirmed by LNT).

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2019-04-17 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128

--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener  ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Benchmarking r270408 on branch vs. trunk on Haswell doesn't show any
> regression
> for me.  Will double-check with up-to-date CPU 2017 tree.

Confirmed.

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2019-04-17 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|tree-optimization   |target

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener  ---
Benchmarking r270408 on branch vs. trunk on Haswell doesn't show any regression
for me.  Will double-check with up-to-date CPU 2017 tree.