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

LoongArch64: Update README.md #4924

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2024
Merged

Conversation

XiWeiGu
Copy link
Contributor

@XiWeiGu XiWeiGu commented Oct 9, 2024

@azuresky01 @martin-frbg @yinshiyou , Could you help me review this PR? Thanks!

@martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator

Looks good to me (though of course I am not that familiar with the Loongson hardware range - I assume a user would know whether their hardware is LSX or LASX ?) Incidentally, is there a known performance or correctness problem that (still) makes it necessary to use the "simple" level3 threading code on LoongArch64 ?

@XiWeiGu
Copy link
Contributor Author

XiWeiGu commented Oct 10, 2024

Using the "simple" level 3 threading code is mainly for performance reasons, and performance data will be provided later.

@XiWeiGu
Copy link
Contributor Author

XiWeiGu commented Oct 10, 2024

Test data on the 3A5000 2.5GHz with a peak double-precision floating-point performance of 160 GFlops is as follows:
图片2
When using USE_SIMPLE_THREADED_LEVEL3=1 on the LoongArch64 platform, there are fewer L3 cache conflicts, resulting in better performance. However, I have also compared this with the X86_64 platform and found the opposite phenomenon, where using USE_SIMPLE_THREADED_LEVEL3=1 often leads to the lowest performance. This may be related to cache design (just a guess).
So I still recommend enabling USE_SIMPLE_THREADED_LEVEL3 on the LoongArch64 platform for now.

@martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation and data.

@martin-frbg martin-frbg added this to the 0.3.29 milestone Oct 16, 2024
@martin-frbg martin-frbg merged commit 6a60eb1 into OpenMathLib:develop Oct 16, 2024
81 of 84 checks passed
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.

2 participants