tobast/phd-thesis
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Staticdeps: eval: adjust figures position

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Théophile Bastian 2024-06-19 11:59:47 +02:00
parent 726763f895
commit 522b8fc05c
1 changed files with 14 additions and 14 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

28
manuscrit/60_staticdeps/50_eval.tex
View file

@ -239,20 +239,6 @@ finer (conservative) filtering of which \uops{} must be considered dependent
---~\eg{} a memory dependency can only come from a memory-related \uop{}~---
may enhance the accuracy of our integration.
\medskip{}
We then evaluate our gains by running \cesasme{}'s harness as we did in
\autoref{chap:CesASMe}, running both \uica{} and \uicadeps{}, on two datasets:
first, the full set of 3\,500 binaries from the previous chapter; then, the
set of binaries pruned to exclude benchmarks heavily relying on memory-carried
dependencies introduced in \autoref{ssec:memlatbound}. If \staticdeps{} is
beneficial to \uica{}, we expect \uicadeps{} to yield significantly better
results than \uica{} alone on the first dataset. On the second dataset,
however, \staticdeps{} should provide no significant contribution, as the
dataset was pruned to not exhibit significant memory-carried latency-boundness.
We present these results in \autoref{table:staticdeps_uica_cesasme}, as well as
the corresponding box-plots in \autoref{fig:staticdeps_uica_cesasme_boxplot}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\footnotesize
@ -281,6 +267,20 @@ memory-carried dependencies rows}\label{fig:staticdeps_uica_cesasme_boxplot}
\medskip{}
We then evaluate our gains by running \cesasme{}'s harness as we did in
\autoref{chap:CesASMe}, running both \uica{} and \uicadeps{}, on two datasets:
first, the full set of 3\,500 binaries from the previous chapter; then, the
set of binaries pruned to exclude benchmarks heavily relying on memory-carried
dependencies introduced in \autoref{ssec:memlatbound}. If \staticdeps{} is
beneficial to \uica{}, we expect \uicadeps{} to yield significantly better
results than \uica{} alone on the first dataset. On the second dataset,
however, \staticdeps{} should provide no significant contribution, as the
dataset was pruned to not exhibit significant memory-carried latency-boundness.
We present these results in \autoref{table:staticdeps_uica_cesasme}, as well as
the corresponding box-plots in \autoref{fig:staticdeps_uica_cesasme_boxplot}.
\medskip{}
The full dataset \uicadeps{} row is extremely close, on every metric, to the
pruned, \uica{}-only row. On this basis, we argue that \staticdeps{}' addition
to \uica{} is very conclusive: the hints provided by \staticdeps{} are