Swept the stack-heavy measurement across placements, and qualified its result (#638)

#636 reported that a stack in BTCM gave a threefold tighter spread than DRAM0
for stack-heavy work. That measurement used a single code placement, which is
the methodology #631 and #633 exist to correct: the cache benchmark got an
alignment sweep and the interrupt handler got one, and this measurement never
did. It was noticed when #637 added two threads to the same image and the figure
moved -- both spreads came out near 6500 and the minima rose 15%.

The recursive body is now generated at four placements and all four are
measured, per placement, in one image.

    placement    BTCM min / spread     DRAM0 min / spread
    offset 0      41854 / 6850          42036 / 6880
    offset 16     48670 / 1946          48792 / 1978
    offset 32     42388 / 6914          42752 / 7018
    offset 48     48914 / 1860          49198 / 6786

Reproducible across runs to within a few hundred cycles.

Spread is dominated by code placement rather than by the memory holding the
stack. It ranges from 1860 to 6914 depending on where the body falls in a cache
line, and placement also moves the minimum by 17%, from 41854 to 49214. Against
that, the memory contributes a consistent but small advantage: BTCM's minimum is
lower at all four placements, by 0.4% to 0.9%.

BTCM's spread beats DRAM0's decisively at one placement of the four, offset 48,
at 1860 against 6786. At the other three the two are within 2% of each other.
So the effect #636 reported is real where it occurs and is not a property of the
part: quoting it as one invited the reader to expect it everywhere.

#636's claim should be read as qualified by this. A stack in BTCM buys a small
consistent improvement in the best case and a large improvement in spread at
some code placements and not others. Anyone building a determinism argument on
it needs the placement sweep in the loop, not a single figure.

The pad nops that displace each placement execute on every recursion level
rather than once, so each placement carries a slightly different constant cost,
about 0.6% at the widest. That cancels in the BTCM against DRAM0 comparison,
which is made at the same placement, and does not affect spread within one.

Assisted-by: Claude Code (Opus 5) <[email protected]>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions