[PATCH] Fix PR69274, 435.gromacs performance regression due to RA

Richard Biener rguenther@suse.de
Fri Feb 5 13:06:00 GMT 2016

On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:35:03PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:10:26PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > Otherwise bootstrap / testing went ok and a full SPEC 2k6 run doesn't
> > > > show any regressions.
> > > 
> > > Any improvements there?
> > 
> > Noise, but I only did 1 run (I did 3 only for 435.gromacs to confirm
> > the progress over pre-Andreas-patch state which I would otherwise
> > classified as noise as well).
> And on that single run gromacs was non-noise?

Well, it was like 264s vs. 269s but it looked good so I tried to
confirm progress independent of Andreas change ;)  You can look
at the usual variance of the machine here:
(that's of course including source changes for each dot).

So yes, in the full 1-run I account +- 5s (out of ~260) as noise.

Note that all SPEC tests ran ontop of r23181[34].

> > I can do a 3-run over the weekend if you think that's useful.  OTOH
> > checking the patch in will get more benchmark/flag/HW covering
> > from our auto-testers (which also only do 1-runs of course and will
> > see unrelated changes as well).
> Maybe that is good enough.  Anyway, the patch is Vlad's area of expertise...

Yes, and we need to decide on that fallout and if we should go for the
more ugly variant (it also fixes the gromacs regression for me).


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list