Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Profiling on 1080 Ti #38

Open
jeff-ruby opened this issue Apr 16, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Profiling on 1080 Ti #38

jeff-ruby opened this issue Apr 16, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

@jeff-ruby
Copy link

There has a NSIGHT profiling result on the web:
https://medium.com/@ifdefelse/understanding-progpow-performance-and-tuning-d72713898db3

I have also tried to do profiling on 1080 Ti with the same codebsae from this github, and have some questions to ask.

The result shows that the ‘Issued Warp Per scheduler’ is only 0.77, which implies that the poor latency hiding, it might be too low compared to 0.94 on 1060, 0.88 on 1070.

Also, the result of ‘Warp State Statistics’ shows that, the bottleneck is ‘Stall Short Scoreboard’ which is related to operations to shared memory.

Below are my shared memory profiling:

Instructions, Requests, %Peak, Bank Conflicts

201326592, 706282140, 76.35, 504955548

Compared with 1060 and 1070, they are the same instructions, but more requests and bank conflicts, I guess it might be the reason of high latency on my experiment.

But, I don’t know why the requests and bank conflicts are about 257274 more than 1060/1070, could anyone help with that?

@ifdefelse
Copy link
Owner

The number of requests and bank conflicts are data dependent and change for every hash. A random value from a register is used for the load address so how many conflicts there are across a warp is random.

If you run the same block and hash on 1060/1070/1080Ti you should get the same results. Running a different block/hash you're seeing a 0.05% difference, which is negligible and actually less variation than I would expect.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants