Changeset 69de8d1 for doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex

Timestamp:

Apr 28, 2026, 12:50:53 AM (30 hours ago)

Author:

Michael Brooks <mlbrooks@…>

Branches:

master

Children:

b0fff42

Parents:

741d004

Message:

fix mistakes in use case numbering in list perf results

File:

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

doc/theses/mike_brooks_MMath/list.tex

@@ -1008 +1008 @@
 the access pattern is equally important.
 Aggressive instruction-level parallelism scheduling, which enables short IR times, is the amplifier, \eg a data dependency is a critical path in one situation but not in another.
-Therefore, the duration response to size is not a steady worsening as size increases.
+Therefore, the duration's response to size is not a steady worsening as size increases.
 Often, each size-independent configuration responds to size increases in steps of slowdown.
 Occasionally a slowdown step is followed by some perforamnce increase, where an incurred penalty begins to amortize away.
@@ -1042 +1042 @@
                 \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-i-swift.pdf}
         } & &
-        \subfloat[ ]{\label{f:zoomin-abs-viii-java}
-                \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-viii-java.pdf}
+        \subfloat[ ]{\label{f:zoomin-abs-ix-java}
+                \includegraphics{plot-list-zoomin-abs-ix-java.pdf}
         }
   \end{tabular}
-  \caption[Variety of IR duration responses to list length, at small--medium lengths]{Variety of IR duration responses to list length, at small--medium lengths.  Two example use cases are shown: I, stack movement with head-only access (plot a); VIII, queue movement with element-oriented removal access (plot b); both use cases have insert-first polarity.  One example is run on each machine: UC-I on AMD (ploat a); UC-VIII on Intel (plot b).  Lower is better.}
+  \caption[Variety of IR duration responses to list length, at small--medium lengths]{Variety of IR duration responses to list length, at small--medium lengths.  Two example use cases are shown: I, stack movement with head-only access (plot a); IX, queue movement with element-oriented removal access (plot b); both use cases have insert-first polarity.  One example is run on each machine: UC-I on AMD (ploat a); UC-IX on Intel (plot b).  Lower is better.}
   \label{fig:plot-list-zoomin-abs}
 \end{figure}
@@ -1404 +1404 @@
 % Framework choice has, therefore, less impact on your speed than the lottery tickets you already hold.
 Now, \CFA/\uCpp run slower than LQ-@list@/@tailq@ by 15\%, a fact explored further in \VRef{s:SweetSoreSpots}.
-But so too does use case VIII typically beat use case IV by 38\%.
+But so too does use case X typically beat use case II by 38\%.
 As does a small size on the Intel typically beat a medium size on the AMD by 66\%.
 Hence, architecture and usage patterns have a significant affect on the specific framework.