RE: [pooma-dev] timers and performance measurement under Linux

[James Crotinger]

It looks to me like Benchmark is assuming wall-clock time - the MOps calculation is:

 

  opCount / time_per_iteration / 1.0e6

 

where time_per_iteration is basically the average over the iterations of

 

  (stop - start - overhead)

 

where stop and start are measured with Clock::value(). If Clock::value() is returning total CPU time and we're running multi-threaded, then this isn't giving us what we want. If anything, the CPU time will go up with the number of threads. Of course, I don't know how clock() works with threads - if it is really returning the total CPU time for the process or what. If it were returning the CPU time for the calling thread, then the calculation is just plain wrong. If it is returning the total CPU time then the calculation needs to divide by the number of worker threads, or something like that - really it is also just plain wrong. The bottom line is that to measure parallel speedup we really want wall-clock time and so it seems that the place to be careful is if you're falling back on the default of clock() or using the SGI high-speed timers (I need to check the docs on these and see just what they really measure).

 

At any rate, Stephen looked over my changes to use gettimeofday under Linux and said they look good, so I've committed my changes to src/Utilities/Clock.h along with correpsonding changes to the configure files.

 

BTW, the Linux header files contain definitions of timespec and clock_gettime, but I couldn't figure out how to access them. Does anyone know? These give even higher resolution, or at least potentially do. But if I just include <sys/time.h> and <time.h>, the compiler tells me timespec has not been defined. The headers check a macro __need_timespec and I tried defining this, but it didn't seem to have any effect. I ran into the same problem earlier when I tried to use nanosleep - it is in the header files, but it seems disabled by some configuration options.

 

    Jim

 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Crotinger [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 9:37 PM
To: 'address@hidden'
Subject: [pooma-dev] timers and performance measurement under Linux

How important is it that the timer used by the benchmark class measure CPU time? I'm not sure how we've even been using this class for parallel codes - in fact, I was thinking that back when we were just testing with threads, we were measuring wall-clock time. But the default implementation of Utilities/Clock.h uses the "clock()" call, which is supposed to measure "elapsed processor time", though I'm not completely sure what that means for a multithreaded program on a multi-processor. On the SGI we were using the high-performance timers, which I believe access the CPUs hardware performance registers, so I would think that that was CPU time as well. Anyway, the problem is that clock() only has 10 ms granularity under Linux and that's really crappy if you're trying to measure scaling with problem size. I've written a version that uses gettimeofday, which has a granularity of something like 15 microseconds under Linux (may depend on processor speed?), but this is definitely not a measure of CPU time. For serial programs this just means that you need to test on an unloaded machine to have the results make sense. For parallel programs, this means that you need to interpret the results differently. Anyway, I'm using this and it seems generally useful, so I'd like to check it in, but was wondering if the clock-time versus CPU-time measurement was a problem for anyone. I suppose we could put an accessor on Clock that would allow the user to find out what type of time was being presented, and Benchmark could examine this and calculate appropriately, if necessary.

As a side comment, I'm using KCC on one of our 1 GHz PIII Linux boxes. ABCTest (which is doing a simple non-stencil calculation, so this is as fast as it gets) is only getting 45 MFlops for the C version, which is the fastest. This seems pretty pathetic. What have other Linux users seen on what types of boxes? Also, what is available on Linux for profiling? Is prof/gprof it? Does KAI sell anything commercial? Does the PIII have any hardware performance monitoring and is there access to it? Does VTune (under Windows) inline sufficiently well to do performance testing there (allegedly good profiling tools, so it might be OK for the serial stuff, but I don't know if it is capable of "inlining everything").

  Jim