Re: [gnugo-devel] engine/influence.c (and DFA)

[Gunnar Farneback]

Dave wrote:
>    I was just having a look at influence.c, since that is where the
> profile shows the most time being spent.

On what platform and what exactly did you run? I just did a profile on
an AMD Athlon running neurogo.tst and then the influence code doesn't
take much time. There the pattern matching is in the top.

  %   cumulative   self              self     total           
 time   seconds   seconds    calls   s/call   s/call  name    
 16.05     37.36    37.36 142878688     0.00     0.00  scan_for_patterns
  6.27     51.96    14.60 104763600     0.00     0.00  check_pattern_light
  5.08     63.79    11.83   179092     0.00     0.00  compute_primary_domains
  3.85     72.76     8.97 64742873     0.00     0.00  fastlib
  3.05     79.87     7.11 30039637     0.00     0.00  do_play_move
  2.94     86.72     6.85    97175     0.00     0.00  do_push_owl
  2.39     92.29     5.57 31788626     0.00     0.00  hashtable_search
  2.29     97.61     5.32 18859166     0.00     0.00  order_moves
  2.21    102.75     5.14 117157416     0.00     0.00  neighbor_of_string
  2.14    107.73     4.98 17859836     0.00     0.00  do_dfa_matchpat
  2.00    112.39     4.66 17704809     0.00     0.00  assimilate_string
  1.89    116.79     4.40 38474122     0.00     0.00  incremental_order_moves
  1.80    120.99     4.20 30037001     0.00     0.00  undo_trymove
  1.64    124.81     3.82 69735447     0.00     0.00  approxlib
  1.46    128.20     3.39   157757     0.00     0.00  accumulate_influence
  [...]

What we see here is probably that the neurogo test suite is rather owl
intensive. For a more representative profiling one should probably
replay a couple of entire games against varied opponents (self play
just doesn't suffice). The most straightforward way to do that would
be to have a GTP file simulating replay of a selection of games.

/Gunnar