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

[Jeffrey D. Oldham]

Richard Guenther wrote:

> 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.
I would prefer to minimize the differences so I would prefer
a) Reducing iters from 1000 to 10 and leaving startnumparticles and 
endnumparticles unchanged
over
b) Reducing iters from 1000 to 10 and reducing endnumparticles to 1000,
but I am not interactively running the tests so I do not know how long 
they require.

Choose whichever choice yields the most reasonable testing time, e.g., 
1-5 minutes maximum.

Thanks for catching this.

--
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden