从 CPU 时间近似处理能力

Question

In a particular scenario I found that a code has taken 20 CPU Years and 4 real Months time. My goal is to approximate the amount of processing power utilized considering the fact that all the processors were on 100% usage all the time. So, my approach is as follows,

20 CPU Years = 20 * 365 * 24 CPU Hours = 175,200 CPU Hours.

Now, 1 CPU Year means 1 GFLOP machine working for 1 real Hour. Which means, in this case, the work done is, 1 GFLOP machine working for 175,200 real Hours. But in reality it took 4 * 30 * 24 = 2,880 real hours. So, approximately 175,200/2,880 =(approx.) 61 GLFOP machine.

My question is am I doing the approximation correctly or misunderstanding some particular term as per the calculations given above ? Or I am mixing GFLOPS and GFLOP together ?

Definitions

Answer 1

My question is am I doing the approximation correctly or misunderstanding some particular term as per the calculations given above ?

"100% usage" may mean the CPU spent 20% of its time doing nothing waiting for data to be transferred to/from RAM (and/or branch mispredictions or other stalls), 10% of its time running faster than normal because other CPUs where actually doing nothing, and 15% of its time running slower than normal for power/temperature management reasons; and (depending on where you got that "100% usage" statistic) "100% usage" may be significantly more confusing (eg http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-08-08/linux-load-averages.html ).

Depending on context; GFLOPS is either "theoretical maximum under perfect conditions that will never occur in practice" (worthless marketing hype); or a direct measurement of a specific case that ignores most of the work a CPU did (everything involving integers, all control flow, all data transfer, all memory management, ...)

In a particular scenario I found that a code has taken 20 CPU Years and 4 real Months time. My goal is to approximate the amount of processing power utilized.

From this; you might (or might not) be able to say "most of the work that CPUs did was discarded due to lockless algorithm retries and/or transactions that couldn't be committed; and (partly because the bottleneck was RAM bandwidth and partly because of the way SMT works on this system) it would have been 4 times as fast if half as many CPUs were used."

TL;DR: Approximating processor power is just an inconvenient way to obfuscate the (more useful) information that you started with (eg that a specific piece of code running on a specific piece of hardware that was working on a specific piece of data happened to take 4 months of real time).

Your Calculation :

Yes; you're mixing GFLOP and GFLOPS (eg GFLOPS = GFLOP per second; and a "1 GFLOP machine" is a computer that can do a billion floating point operations in an infinite amount of time, which is every computer), and the web page you linked to is making the same mistake (eg saying "a 1 GFLOP reference machine" when it should be saying "a 1 GFLOPS reference machine").

Note that there's no need to care about GFLOPS or GFLOP for the calculation you're doing: If something was supposed to take 20 "reference CPU years" and actually took 4 months (or 4/12 years); then you'd say that your hardware is equivalent to "20 / (4/12) = 60 reference CPUs". Of course this is horribly silly and it'd make more sense to say that your hardware happened to achieve 60 GFLOPS without bothering with the misleading "reference CPU" nonsense.