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