master-thesis/thesis/chapters/evaluation.tex
Daniel d8f5454e9c
Some checks are pending
CI / Julia ${{ matrix.version }} - ${{ matrix.os }} - ${{ matrix.arch }} - ${{ github.event_name }} (x64, ubuntu-latest, 1.10) (push) Waiting to run
CI / Julia ${{ matrix.version }} - ${{ matrix.os }} - ${{ matrix.arch }} - ${{ github.event_name }} (x64, ubuntu-latest, 1.6) (push) Waiting to run
CI / Julia ${{ matrix.version }} - ${{ matrix.os }} - ${{ matrix.arch }} - ${{ github.event_name }} (x64, ubuntu-latest, pre) (push) Waiting to run
concept and design: started writing this chapter
2025-04-03 13:43:23 +02:00

31 lines
1.1 KiB
TeX

\chapter{Evaluation}
\label{cha:evaluation}
\section{Test environment}
Explain the hardware used, as well as the actual data (how many expressions, variables etc.)
\section{Results}
talk about what we will see now (results only for interpreter, then transpiler and then compared with each other and a CPU interpreter)
\subsection{Interpreter}
Results only for Interpreter
\subsection{Performance tuning}
Document the process of performance tuning
Initial: CPU-Side single-threaded; up to 1024 threads per block; bounds-checking enabled (especially in kernel)
Blocksize reduced to a maximum of 256 -> moderate improvement in medium and large
Using @inbounds -> noticeable improvement in 2 out of 3
\subsection{Transpiler}
Results only for Transpiler
\subsection{Performance tuning}
Document the process of performance tuning
Initial: CPU-Side single-threaded; up to 1024 threads per block; bounds-checking enabled
Blocksize reduced to a maximum of 256 -> moderate improvement in medium and large
Using @inbounds -> small improvement only on CPU side code
\subsection{Comparison}
Comparison of Interpreter and Transpiler as well as Comparing the two with CPU interpreter