Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 10:17:56 07/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
It is used *extremely* intensive. Therefore I assumed that most of the time the table sits in cache. But apparently no... Makes you wonder about other simple lookup's. A lot of 10 cycle penalties, it seems. Bas. On July 13, 2003 at 12:42:37, Andrew Williams wrote: >On July 13, 2003 at 12:17:19, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On July 13, 2003 at 07:43:26, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>>Probably a stupid question, but if you have a loop which does just LastOne with >>>this scheme, wouldn't the table get cached and therefore make it go much faster >>>than in a test where it's embedded in your code? >>> >>>AW >> >>Why would a 64-byte table not be cached in the real run of the chess program? > >I always assume that it would be pushed out in the course of all the other >things that the program is doing. I guess it depends on how frequently the table >is used. I don't know anything about bitboard programs, so I couldn't begin to >judge what is happening. One thing I can recommend is valgrind and cachegrind: > >http://developer.kde.org/~sewardj/ > >These seem to be Linux-based tools, but I assume you can get something similar >for Windows. Cachegrind tells you how many cache misses every function in your >program causes. Cachegrind is actually an option to valgrind, so you run >valgrind with a special option to do the cache checking. > >Andrew
This page took 0.03 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.