-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 240
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
allow the use of openblas #475
Comments
It might be good to include a benchmark written in fortran that could be run |
Here's some info on a possibly useful debian/ubuntu package for testing blas:
|
Sage uses Atlas, which is pain to install (automatic tuning is very slow), but is reasonably fast on Linux and OSX. It would be interesting to compare how it compares with openblas, once M2 on Sage is working... |
Here is an example, using M2, that hopefully indicates that using a better blas would have a significant effect on these computations (note: for one example of free resolutions, a similar rank computation (on SL) took 4 days, so improving by a factor would be excellent!)
|
By the way, about my code in the previous post: sorry, I chose a time inefficient manner to create these matrices. |
@DanGrayson this one is important :) |
by the way, Sage has switched to openblas. |
|
By the way, Sage switched to openblas years ago. |
With the CMake build, we have, too! Hopefully the autotools build is next. |
Here's a quick benchmark. First I had to comment out everything after line 320 of Using OpenBLAS:
Compared with LAPACK/BLAS:
That's a 37% improvement. |
The effect on gb tests is even more significant with 58% improvement. OpenBLAS:
BLAS/LAPACK:
|
What remains is to switch the autotools build over to openblas. |
If you don't want to build your own openblas, Admittedly, complicated - the problem is that different Linux distros package openblas differently, sometimes you need a separate libcblas, etc (but please ask questions about it, I wrote an initial version of that monster after all :-)) |
Fixed in #3461 |
Word on the street is that this blas is far better than the default blas, on Ubuntu at least, and probably other linuxes too. After compiling it, I think that the new library just needs to be added on the link library list. It was recommended to me that we compile it from source, to better use the facilities on each target machine. However, we should probably also allow the use of the ubuntu openblas package for building distributions.
It would be nice to allow the use of openblas, and if it is actually far superior, make it the default. On mac's though, we currently use the Accelerate framework, which seems to be very good. Even there though, it might be good to compare them.
There are several reasons for this request, but my main interest right at the moment is to improve the speed of rank computations in ffpack (which is used in the fast non-minimal free resolution code). Currently, if I compare across machines, I find that Ubuntu is perhaps 5-10 times slower at such computations than on my mac laptop, which is a year or two old.
I will add in benchmarks to check this, and so we can see what any actual improvement is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: