[BIOSAL] Results with Xeon and Xeon Phi

[Boisvert, Sebastien]

With rand_r instead of rand on Xeon E7:

PERFORMANCE_COUNTER node-count = 1
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER worker-count-per-node = 29
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER actor-count-per-worker = 100
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER worker-count = 29
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER actor-count = 2900
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER message-count-per-actor = 40000
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER message-count = 116000000
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER elapsed-time = 91.960110 s
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER computation-throughput = 1261416.493718 messages / s
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER node-throughput = 1261416.493718 messages / s
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER worker-throughput = 43497.120473 messages / s
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER worker-latency = 22990 ns
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER actor-throughput = 434.971205 messages / s
PERFORMANCE_COUNTER actor-latency = 2299002 ns

I will redo the tests on jenny-mic0 since the glibc was using a lot of syscalls !


> From: Fangfang Xia [fangfang.xia at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 3:47 PM
> To: Boisvert, Sebastien
> Cc: biosal at lists.cels.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: [BIOSAL] Results with Xeon and Xeon Phi
> 
> 
> This interesting. I’m curious what the call stacks for these spin locks are?
> 
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Boisvert, Sebastien <boisvert at anl.gov> wrote:
> 42.42%
>   [kernel]                          [k] _spin_lock    
> 
> 
>