Date: | Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:06:49 -0600 |
---|---|
From: | Dan Gibson <degibson@xxxxxxxx> |
Subject: | Re: [Gems-users] instruction count question |
Introducing small, random variations in memory latency is known to cause multithreaded benchmarks to take different execution paths, because timing affects the order of memory races and lock acquisitions. Removing the randomness is not a good idea, because by observing only one execution, you study only one possible 'correct' case, when that case may or may not be representative of the true mean. Regards, Dan On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Jerry Lin <cosjerry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~gibson [esc]:wq! |
[← Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread→] |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [Gems-users] cannot handle TLS error, Guodong Liu |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [Gems-users] Number of instruction executed in GEMS for CMPs, Shoaib Altaf |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [Gems-users] instruction count question, Jerry Lin |
Next by Thread: | [Gems-users] Issues warming up for CMP, Muhammad Shoaib |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] |