Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Tester] Faster tester and iut #223

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 11, 2018
Merged

[Tester] Faster tester and iut #223

merged 6 commits into from
Oct 11, 2018

Conversation

shibatch
Copy link
Owner

With this patch, testing time is reduced to 50%.

Copy link
Collaborator

@fpetrogalli fpetrogalli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be great if you could revert the whitespace changes.

This is great stuff, we needed to make testing faster! Thank you for working on this.

@@ -4311,7 +4316,7 @@ void do_test() {

//

mpfr_set_default_prec(1280);
mpfr_set_default_prec(320);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you reduce the precision of MPFR because it gives speedup? Why did you choose the original values? Are these new values enough to make sure we don't miss errors?

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

1280 is for double precision.
320 is more than 128(exponent of single precision) + 24(mantissa length). Actually, 160 should be enough.

@@ -124,7 +124,11 @@ int readln(int fd, char *buf, int cnt) {
}

int startsWith(char *str, char *prefix) {
return strncmp(str, prefix, strlen(prefix)) == 0;
while(*str != '\0' && *prefix != '\0') {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are you sure this code is faster then the library call? I believe that strncmp have highly specialized implementations in glibc...

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The original code is strncmp + strlen.
This code is faster if defined as a static function.
I will move this to testerutil.h.

@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ void stop(char *mes) {

int ptoc[2], ctop[2];
int pid;
FILE *fpctop;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does it have to be global? Can't it be private inside of main?

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fpctop is reference by many functions.

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
set -ev
cd /build/build-cross
make -j 2 all
export OMP_WAIT_POLICY=passive
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is this for?

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is for changing OpenMP setting.
With the default setting, it does not run fast if there are many OpenMP processes running simultaneously.

@fpetrogalli
Copy link
Collaborator

@shibatch , where do you see the 50% speedup you claim in the PR?
When I look at https://travis-ci.org/shibatch/sleef/pull_requests, the run times seem comparable (~2h).

@shibatch
Copy link
Owner Author

Running time at travis includes time for comiplation.
Compare, for example https://travis-ci.org/shibatch/sleef/jobs/422911913 and https://travis-ci.org/shibatch/sleef/jobs/418961450.
Testing time for iut is reduced from 165.04 sec to 89.70 sec.

@shibatch shibatch merged commit ffd58fe into master Oct 11, 2018
@shibatch shibatch deleted the Faster_tester2 branch October 24, 2018 13:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants