[bug#53121] [PATCH] gnu: ceres: Update to 2.0.0.

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi,

Felix Gruber <felgru@posteo.net> skribis:

> Unfortunately, I'm getting mixed results for the benchmarks. In most
> cases, I got slight (<10%) improvements in runtime, but there are also 
> some benchmarks that were worse with the --tune flag. I'm wondering
> whether the compiler flags set by the --tune option are correctly used 
> by the custom 'build phase of the ceres-solver-benchmarks package. I
> didn't have the time to look closer into it as I'm currently in the 
> middle of moving to another country.

OK.

> Anyways, I've attached the results of benchmark runs that I've
> generated using guix commit 7f779286df7e8636d901f4734501902cc934a72f
> once untuned and once tuned for broadwell CPUs.
> My laptop on which I ran the tests has a Quad Core AMD Ryzen 7 PRO
> 2700U CPU with 2200 MHz.

Could it be that ‘znver3’ or something works better on those CPUs?

> In the attachments you find
> * a script run_benchmarks.sh used to run the benchmarks in tuned and
>   untuned guix shells,
> * text files ending in `-tuned` or `-untuned` which contain the
>   results of those benchmark runs,
> * a script compare.sh which calls a Python script compare-results.py
>   to generate files ending in `-diff` that contain the relative change 
> between untuned and tuned benchmarks (negative time and CPU
> percentages mean the tuned benchmark was faster, while for the number
> of iterations, positive percentages mean the tuned benchmark had run
> more iterations).

Interesting, thanks for taking the time to run these benchmarks.

It’s hard to draw conclusions.  I wonder how noisy these measurements
are and whether the differences we’re seeing are significant.  Food for
thoughts!

Ludo’.