Staticdeps: eval: adjust figures position
This commit is contained in:
parent
726763f895
commit
522b8fc05c
1 changed files with 14 additions and 14 deletions
|
@ -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{}~---
|
---~\eg{} a memory dependency can only come from a memory-related \uop{}~---
|
||||||
may enhance the accuracy of our integration.
|
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}
|
\begin{table}
|
||||||
\centering
|
\centering
|
||||||
\footnotesize
|
\footnotesize
|
||||||
|
@ -281,6 +267,20 @@ memory-carried dependencies rows}\label{fig:staticdeps_uica_cesasme_boxplot}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\medskip{}
|
\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
|
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
|
pruned, \uica{}-only row. On this basis, we argue that \staticdeps{}' addition
|
||||||
to \uica{} is very conclusive: the hints provided by \staticdeps{} are
|
to \uica{} is very conclusive: the hints provided by \staticdeps{} are
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue