![]() |
|
|
#23 | |
|
Feb 2016
UK
1101100112 Posts |
On two systems I can do it on demand 100%.
Quote:
If it helps, I went the other way. It still crashes if I check complex FFTs on Windows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Jul 2019
the Netherlands
101102 Posts |
Code:
Prime95 64-bit version 29.8, RdtscTiming=1 FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=320, Pass2=15360, clm=4 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.32, 24.22, 24.05, 24.21 ms. Throughput: 165.30 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=320, Pass2=15360, clm=2 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.94, 25.10, 25.14, 24.90 ms. Throughput: 159.88 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=320, Pass2=15360, clm=1 (4 cores, 4 workers): 25.35, 25.56, 25.31, 25.15 ms. Throughput: 157.83 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=384, Pass2=12800, clm=4 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.61, 23.98, 24.37, 24.19 ms. Throughput: 164.73 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=384, Pass2=12800, clm=2 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.73, 24.94, 24.87, 24.69 ms. Throughput: 161.26 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=384, Pass2=12800, clm=1 (4 cores, 4 workers): 25.46, 25.24, 25.24, 25.18 ms. Throughput: 158.23 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=640, Pass2=7680, clm=4 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.59, 24.63, 24.31, 24.28 ms. Throughput: 163.59 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=640, Pass2=7680, clm=2 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.67, 24.60, 24.68, 24.58 ms. Throughput: 162.39 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=640, Pass2=7680, clm=1 (4 cores, 4 workers): 25.49, 25.45, 25.26, 25.43 ms. Throughput: 157.43 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=768, Pass2=6400, clm=4 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.80, 24.51, 24.64, 24.70 ms. Throughput: 162.19 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=768, Pass2=6400, clm=2 (4 cores, 4 workers): 25.17, 25.14, 25.03, 25.22 ms. Throughput: 159.11 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=768, Pass2=6400, clm=1 (4 cores, 4 workers): 25.72, 25.79, 25.55, 25.77 ms. Throughput: 155.61 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1280, Pass2=3840, clm=4 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.10, 24.14, 24.41, 24.57 ms. Throughput: 164.58 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1280, Pass2=3840, clm=2 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.15, 23.99, 24.02, 24.23 ms. Throughput: 165.98 iter/sec. FFTlen=4800K, Type=3, Arch=4, Pass1=1280, Pass2=3840, clm=1 (4 cores, 4 workers): 24.88, 25.04, 25.09, 25.07 ms. Throughput: 159.89 iter/sec. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2·3,767 Posts |
So what we know:
1) Problem is Windows only. 2) Problem is only 4 cores / 4 workers (on 6-core and 8-core CPUs). 3) Problem occurs on 4800K FFT. Are other FFT sizes a problem? Perhaps clue #2 is the key. Maybe the bug can be reproduced on an Intel Windows machine when benchmarking fewer cores than are available. Last fiddled with by Prime95 on 2019-07-30 at 07:23 |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2·1,579 Posts |
29.8b5 on my old 8 core Haswell-E the 4800K benchmark on 4 cores 4 workers works fine with and without all-complex FFTs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
Feb 2016
UK
3×5×29 Posts |
Quote:
Edit: I've been thinking about changing the cooling on my Ryzen systems, so could use that opportunity to drop in one of the older CPUs again for a test. Might not be before the weekend. Edit 2: I've asked on another forum if anyone else can do the testing, might get results faster that way. Last fiddled with by mackerel on 2019-07-30 at 09:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Jul 2019
the Netherlands
1616 Posts |
When I select 4096k FFT, 2 cores, 2 workers, Prime95 goes haywire.
Error setting affinity to core #xyz. There are 8 cores. Error setting affinity to core #xyz. There are 8 cores. Error setting affinity to core #xyz. There are 8 cores. ... mprime is fine with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×3,767 Posts |
Stack corruption?
Please set "AffinityVerbosityBench=3" in prime.txt and try again. It will print out a smidge more information. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Jul 2019
the Netherlands
1616 Posts |
I get a lot of 'Affinity set to cpuset 0x00000003' or similar credible hexadecimal number but occasionally 'Error setting affinity to core #208. There are 8 cores.' or something similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×3,767 Posts |
Thinking out loud:
The bad core number is stored on the stack. There are a number of hwloc calls prior to attempting to set the affinity. The problem happens only under Windows and Zen 2. Possible causes: 1) Bug in prime95. Seems unlikely in that prime95 is executing the same code for both Intel and Zen2. 2) Bug in Zen 2. Seems unlikely. AMD has a big QA budget. 3) Bug in hwloc. Possible. Note the Linux hwloc output is different than the Windows hwloc output. Hwloc developers may not have tested on Zen 2 yet. 4) Bug in Windows. Hwloc gets much of its info from the OS. We've seen several cases where hwloc returns bad cache information because the OS isn't detecting caches properly. Not sure how to proceed from here. Hwloc bug repository had no relevant posts as of 2 days ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Jul 2019
the Netherlands
2·11 Posts |
I think a good question would be why is the cpu core the affinity is set to >= 8?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×3,767 Posts |
Although it will prove nothing if it succeeds, try running hwloc's stand-alone program called lstopo or lstopo-no-graphics from https://www.open-mpi.org/software/hwloc/v2.0/
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Prime95 crashes everytime on same core | chiro | Software | 18 | 2018-04-12 12:41 |
| Memtest86+ shows no errors but computer crashes with Prime95 | TObject | Hardware | 11 | 2013-05-09 11:43 |
| Prime95 v27.7 crashes | x3r | Software | 26 | 2012-06-23 01:25 |
| Newb help (it crashes) | Proggie | Software | 4 | 2005-01-05 07:35 |
| Everything crashes my computer | Unregistered | Hardware | 6 | 2004-08-09 19:28 |