mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-05-05, 10:20   #210
Micke
 
May 2022

3 Posts
Thumbs down

*edit*
I just don't use this bugged old version anymore, which is listed as actual version on https://www.mersenne.org/download/#download.

Last fiddled with by Micke on 2022-05-05 at 10:36
Micke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-05, 14:23   #211
tshinozk
 
Nov 2012
Japan

5·7 Posts
Default

I run mprime on linux (Mint) in the same machine, in turn.

Timings for 2048K FFT length (1 core, 1 worker): 0.47 ms. Throughput: 2119.90 iter/sec.

mprime still uses all cores.
This result corresponds to the case of 12900k in post #203.
Attached Files
File Type: txt results.bench_linux.txt (6.4 KB, 15 views)
tshinozk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 02:03   #212
tshinozk
 
Nov 2012
Japan

5·7 Posts
Default

My BIOS (X299) can not disable AVX-512, while it seems RocketLake can.
I found that "noxsave" kernel parameter disables AVX.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...linux-computer

I run linux with "noxsave" for the boot option of GRUB.
As a result, all AVX are disabled, and Throughput shows very slow for SSE.
mprime still uses all cores, while the old version is not so.

Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-7980XE CPU @ 2.60GHz
CPU features: Prefetchw, SSE, SSE2, SSE4

Prime95 64-bit version 30.7
Timings for 2048K FFT length (1 core, 1 worker): 1.14 ms. Throughput: 880.96 iter/sec.
Timings for 2048K FFT length (2 cores, 1 worker): 1.14 ms. Throughput: 879.03 iter/sec.

Prime95 64-bit version 30.6
Timings for 2048K FFT length (1 core, 1 worker): 16.28 ms. Throughput: 61.41 iter/sec.
Timings for 2048K FFT length (2 cores, 1 worker): 8.29 ms. Throughput: 120.60 iter/sec.
Attached Files
File Type: txt results.benchNoAVX_306b4.txt (6.3 KB, 13 views)
File Type: txt results.benchNoAVX_307b9.txt (6.3 KB, 14 views)
tshinozk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 05:37   #213
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

1,823 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tshinozk View Post
My BIOS (X299) can not disable AVX-512, while it seems RocketLake can.
I found that "noxsave" kernel parameter disables AVX.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...linux-computer

I run linux with "noxsave" for the boot option of GRUB.
As a result, all AVX are disabled, and Throughput shows very slow for SSE.
...
It might be easier to tell Prime95 whether you want to use AVX512 features : stop (and exit ?) mprime, edit local.txt.

From undoc.txt :
Code:
The program supports many different code paths for PRP/LL testing depending on
the CPU type.  It also has a few different factoring code paths.  You can
force the program to choose a specific code path by setting the proper
combination of these settings in local.txt:
	CpuSupportsRDTSC=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsCMOV=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsPrefetch=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsSSE=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsSSE2=0 or 1
	CpuSupports3DNow=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsAVX=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsFMA3=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsFMA4=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsAVX2=0 or 1
	CpuSupportsAVX512F=0 or 1
This shouldn't be necessary though as the program uses the CPUID instruction
to see if the CPU supports these features.
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 08:24   #214
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

3·73 Posts
Default

It should not be necessary to disable AVX-512 to get a working-as-expected configuration. But I concur with Jacob to try if disabling AVX-512 the way he described leads to the same behaviour.

@tshinozk: Have you had a look on v30.8 already? While is not ready-to-release yet, it is worth having a look at it to check whether it has this bug fixed. If not, you can post to the 30.8 thread that the bug is also present there and I guess it is more likely to get attention there.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 15:55   #215
tshinozk
 
Nov 2012
Japan

5·7 Posts
Default

v30.8b14 has the issue, starting from v30.7b2 .

I try running prime95.exe with CpuSupportsXXX in local.txt .
I can disable AVXs, but the issue is not resolved.

Can nobody reproduce the issue where prime95 cannot change the number of cores in benchmark?
tshinozk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 16:50   #216
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

3,733 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tshinozk View Post
v30.8b14 has the issue, starting from v30.7b2
As kruoli said, if the problem exists in the current development version you may want to post in the v30.8 thread since that version is currently being worked on (and v30.7 is not).
James Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 16:54   #217
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

19A116 Posts
Default v30.7b9, i5-1035G1, & v30.8b14 benchmarking

Yes.
Mprime/prime95 normally runs at lower priority to other user applications and system tasks. It yields the CPU for those higher priority tasks as much as they can use. With significant system load, benchmarking on available cycles on half the cores or less may look very similar to benchmarking on all of them.
The following is a quick benchmark on my laptop I'm typing on now, which has lots of tabs in Firefox open, and numerous (dozens) remote desktop sessions going as client (display). Firefox alone was using around 2 cores' throughput out of the 4 real on this Windows 10 system.
Code:
[May 6 11:13:06] Worker starting
[May 6 11:13:06] Your timings will be written to the results.bench.txt file.
[May 6 11:13:06] Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks
[May 6 11:13:06] Benchmarking multiple workers to measure the impact of memory bandwidth
[May 6 11:13:07] Timing 2048K FFT, 1 core, 1 worker.  Average times:  5.59 ms.  Total throughput: 179.00 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:13:22] Timing 2048K FFT, 1 core hyperthreaded, 1 worker.  Average times:  6.72 ms.  Total throughput: 148.83 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:13:38] Timing 2048K FFT, 2 cores, 1 worker.  Average times:  5.35 ms.  Total throughput: 187.04 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:13:53] Timing 2048K FFT, 2 cores hyperthreaded, 1 worker.  Average times:  6.63 ms.  Total throughput: 150.94 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:14:09] Timing 2048K FFT, 3 cores, 1 worker.  Average times:  5.58 ms.  Total throughput: 179.11 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:14:25] Timing 2048K FFT, 3 cores hyperthreaded, 1 worker.  Average times:  5.90 ms.  Total throughput: 169.37 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:14:41] Timing 2048K FFT, 4 cores, 1 worker.  Average times:  5.46 ms.  Total throughput: 183.05 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:14:56] Timing 2048K FFT, 4 cores hyperthreaded, 1 worker.  Average times:  5.86 ms.  Total throughput: 170.73 iter/sec.
[May 6 11:15:12] 
[May 6 11:15:12] Throughput benchmark complete.
[May 6 11:15:12] Throughput benchmark complete.
[May 6 11:15:12] Worker stopped.
Those timings are suspiciously similar even given the other system loads. See first two attachments.

So, switching to its hardware twin "martinette", no Firefox running, only 1 VNC remote desktop server running, and prime95 V30.8b14, CPU utilization ~5-10% with prime95 paused, benchmarking 1-4 cores with & without hyperthreading, 1 worker, Windows 11 TaskManager shows all physical cores running saturated regardless of indicated core count during prime95 benchmarking; logical cores' cpu loading % are somewhat affected by hyperthreading or not. (attachments 3 - 5)


Another oddity is that it would not run 8192 fft benchmarking. In v30.7b9 I could specify 2048-2048 as fft lengths to benchmark, 1-4 cores, 1 worker only.

V30.8b14 exited benchmarking instantly, to stopped state, if I specified 8192-8192. As does v30.7b9, for 4096 only or 8192 only. There might be more. 6144 behaved ok.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	p95-cpu-load-with-FF.png
Views:	22
Size:	58.3 KB
ID:	26842   Click image for larger version

Name:	p95-i5-1035G1-benchmark settings.png
Views:	18
Size:	52.9 KB
ID:	26843   Click image for larger version

Name:	martinette normal p95 activity no FF 1 VNC server session.png
Views:	17
Size:	144.5 KB
ID:	26844   Click image for larger version

Name:	martinette p95v30.8b14 benchmark settings.png
Views:	15
Size:	227.2 KB
ID:	26845   Click image for larger version

Name:	martinette cpu cores loading and taskmgr.png
Views:	14
Size:	385.7 KB
ID:	26846  


Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2022-05-06 at 17:01
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 18:55   #218
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

3×73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
See first two attachments.
The first attachment is especially worrysome because main memory and both the SSD are fully utilized. What are "other system loads"? Do they justify this loads? If not, it looks like extensive swapping.

Last fiddled with by kruoli on 2022-05-06 at 19:18 Reason: Grammar.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 20:32   #219
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

656110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
What are "other system loads"?
Mostly Firefox-gone-wild. I've dumped a lot of tabs which gave very temporary relief. It gets in strange states sometimes if left running a long time, including when it has downloaded a FF update but not yet applied it & restarted FF. I tend to leave it running as long as possible with multiple Google Colab sessions, and many other tabs open. Looks like time for a clean start again RSN.
Checking just now, Help, About Firefox includes "Restart to update Firefox".
And after temporarily taming Firefox, prime95 v30.7b9 demonstrates the same all-physical-cores-busy-when-benchmarking-1 issue as v30.8b14.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2022-05-06 at 20:32
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-06, 21:32   #220
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

53×149 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tshinozk View Post
v30.8b14 has the issue, starting from v30.7b2 .
Try v30.8b15
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 10:25.


Sun Jun 26 10:25:14 UTC 2022 up 73 days, 8:26, 1 user, load averages: 2.35, 2.11, 1.67

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔