Re: [pooma-dev] Re: [PATCH] don't bench too much for boundschecking

[Richard Guenther]

Jeffrey D. Oldham wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > This reduces particle benchmarking if POOMA_BOUNDS_CHECK is on
> > to one time with 100 particles (it takes an awful lot of time).
> >
> > Ok?
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> >
> > 2004Aug27  Richard Guenther <address@hidden>
> >
> >     * src/Particles/tests/particle_tests.h: for POOMA_BOUNDS_CHECK
> >     reduce default problem size(s).
> >  
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Index: Particles/tests/particle_tests.h
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: 
> > /home/pooma/Repository/r2/src/Particles/tests/particle_tests.h,v
> > retrieving revision 1.22
> > diff -u -u -r1.22 particle_tests.h
> > --- Particles/tests/particle_tests.h    23 Aug 2004 18:44:17 -0000    
> > 1.22
> > +++ Particles/tests/particle_tests.h    27 Aug 2004 15:45:38 -0000
> > @@ -400,8 +400,13 @@
> >   // Default parameters for the benchmark.
> >
> >   int iters = 1000;
> > +#if POOMA_BOUNDS_CHECK
> > +  int startnumparticles = 100;
> > +  int endnumparticles = 100;
> > +#else
> >   int startnumparticles = 100;
> >   int endnumparticles = 10000;
> > +#endif
> >   int multnumparticles = 10;
> >   double movefrac = 0.1;
> >   bool usesync = false;
> >  
> I appreciate the desire to reduce the running time when bounds checking 
> occurs, but this new set of values ensures the loop runs only once.  
> Without the change, the loop runs three times.  It would be nice to have 
> the loop run at least twice to ensure it does not break something when 
> the loop counter is updated.  To do this, set endnumparticles to 1000 
> when bounds are checked.  A more complex change is to change 
> 'endnumparticles' to 'startnumparticles * multnumparticles' and reducing 
> 'multnumparticles' to a smaller value greater than one.

Another possibility would be to reduce iters to 10 and endnumparticles 
to 1000.  Would this be ok?

Thanks,
Richard.