Changeset 17f2a7f4 for doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex

Timestamp:

Apr 10, 2026, 9:50:22 AM (3 weeks ago)

Author:

Michael Brooks <mlbrooks@…>

Branches:

master

Children:

806534c

Parents:

6767f27

Message:

Revise presentation of absolute times and add discussion of their physical influences.

File:

• doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex (modified) (3 diffs)

doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex

@@ -955 +955 @@
 
 The preceding result shows that all the intrusive implementations examined have noteworthy performance compared to wrapped lists.
-This analysis picks the list region 10-150 and zooms-in to differentiate among the different intrusive implementations.
+This analysis picks the sizes below 150 and zooms in to differentiate among the different intrusive implementations.
 The data is selected from the start of \VRef[Figure]{f:Linear}, but the start of \VRef[Figure]{f:Shuffled} would be largely the same.
 
@@ -963 +963 @@
   \begin{tabular}{p{0.75in}p{2.75in}p{3in}}
   &
-  \subfloat[Absolute Time, AMD]{\label{f:AbsoluteTime-swift}
+  \subfloat[Operation I, AMD]{\label{f:AbsoluteTime-i-swift}
         \hspace*{-0.75in}
-        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-swift.pdf}
+        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-i-swift.pdf}
   } % subfigure
   &
-  \subfloat[Absolute Time, Intel]{\label{f:AbsoluteTime-java}
-        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-java.pdf}
+  \subfloat[Operation I, Intel]{\label{f:AbsoluteTime-i-java}
+        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-i-java.pdf}
   } % subfigure
   \\
   &
-  \subfloat[Relative Time, AMD]{\label{f:RelativeTime-swift}
+  \subfloat[Operation VIII, AMD]{\label{f:AbsoluteTime-viii-swift}
         \hspace*{-0.75in}
-        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-rel-swift.pdf}
+        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-viii-swift.pdf}
   } % subfigure
   &
-  \subfloat[Relative Time, Intel]{\label{f:RelativeTime-java}
-        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-rel-java.pdf}
+  \subfloat[Operation VIII, Intel]{\label{f:AbsoluteTime-viii-java}
+        \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-viii-java.pdf}
   } % subfigure
   \end{tabular}
-  \caption{Operation duration \vs list length at small-medium lengths.  One example operation is shown: stack movement, insert-first polarity and head-mediated access.  (a) has absolute times.  (b) has times relative to those of LQ-\lstinline{tailq}.}
+  \caption{Operation duration \vs list length at small-medium lengths.  Two example operations are shown: [I] stack movement with head-only access (plots a and b); [VIII] queue movement with element-oriented removal access (plots c and d); both operations use insert-first polarity.}
   \label{fig:plot-list-zoomin}
 \end{figure}
 
-\VRef[Figure]{fig:plot-list-zoomin} shows the zone from 10--150 blown up, both in absolute and relative time.
+\VRef[Figure]{fig:plot-list-zoomin} shows the sizes below 150 blown up.
 % The same scenario as the coarse comparison is used: a stack, with insertions and removals happening at the end called ``first,'' ``head'' or ``front,'' and all changes occurring through a head-provided insert/remove operation.
 The error bars show fastest and slowest time seen on five trials, and the central point is the mean of the remaining three trials.
 For readability, the points are slightly staggered at a given horizontal value, where the points might otherwise appear on top of each other.
 
+\VRef[Figure]{fig:plot-list-zoomin} has the pair machines, each in a column.
+It also has a pair of operating scenarios, each in a row.
+The experiment runs twelve operating scenarios; the ones chosen for their variety happen to be items I and VIII from the listing of \MLB{TODO: cross reference}.
+Note that LQ-list does not support queue operations, so this framework is absent from Operation VIII.
+
+At lengths 1 and 2, winner patterns seen at larger sizes generally do not apply.
+Indeed, an issue with \CFA giving terribel on queues at length 1 is evident in \VRef[Figure]{f:AbsoluteTime-viii-swift}.
+This phenomenon is elaborated in \MLB{TODO: xref}.
+For the remainder of this section, these sizes are disregarded.
+
+Even after the very-small anomalies, the selections of operation and machine significantly affect how speed responds to size.
+For example, Operation I on the AMD (\VRef[Figure]{f:AbsoluteTime-i-swift}) has \CFA generally winning over LQ, while the opposite is seen by switching either to Operation VIII (\VRef[Figure]{f:AbsoluteTime-viii-swift}) or to the Intel (\VRef[Figure]{f:AbsoluteTime-i-java}).
+For another, Operation I has sore spots at lengths in the middle for \uCpp on AMD and LQ-list on Intel, which resolve at larger lengths; yet no such pattern presents with Operation VIII.
+
+In spite of these complex interactions, a couple spots of stability can be analyzed.
+In these examples, the size zones 4--16, ``small,'' and above 48, ``medium,'' covering four specific sizes apiece, each tends to show a simple winner/loser story.
+Manual inspection of other such plots (not detailed) showed that this quality is generally upheld.
+So these zones are used for basing comparison.
+
+\begin{figure}
+  \centering
+  \includegraphics{plot-list-mchn-szz.pdf}
+  \caption{Histogram of operation durations, decomposed by physical factos.
+  Measurements are included from only the sizes in the ``small'' and ``medium'' stable zones.}
+  \label{fig:plot-list-mchn-szz}
+\end{figure}
+
+\VRef[Figure]{fig:plot-list-mchn-szz} shows the effects of the physical factors of size zone and machine.
+Each of these four histograms shows variation in duration coming from the four specific sizes in a size zone, from combining results of all twelve operations and all four frameworks.
+Among the means of the four histograms, there is a standard deviation of 0.9 ns, which is 20\% of the global mean.
+This variability is due solely to physial factors.
+
+From the perspective of assessing winning/losing frameworks, these physical effects are noise.
+So, subsequent analysis conditions on the phisical effects.
+That is, it presents results relative to the mean of the physical quadrant (\VRef[fig]{fig:plot-list-mchn-szz} histogram) to which it belogs.
+With this adjustment, absolute duration values (in nonsecods) are lost.
+In return, the physical quadrants are re-combined, enabling assessment of the non-physical factors.
+
+\MLB{Peter, stop here.  Graph and discussion of these non-physical factos is coming.}
+
+\begin{comment}
 While preparing experiment results, I first tested on my old office PC, AMD FX-8370E Eight-Core, before switching to the large new server for final testing.
 For this experiment, the results flipped in my favour when running on the server.
@@ -1003 +1044 @@
 @tailq@'s mean is always zero by definition, but its error bars, representing a single scenario's re-run stability, are still meaningful.
 With this bend straightened out, aggregating across lengths is feasible.
+\end{comment}
 
 \begin{figure}