-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 127
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
Recent versions of gemma are slower #136
Comments
@pjotrp GEMMA v0.96 is also faster (total runtime was 73 seconds). So it must be a change that was introduced after v0.96. |
Thanks confirming. I am not on Macos, so had to rule that out. We did change some calls to BLAS etc. Culprit should be pretty obvious. |
Hi @pcarbo, it is interesting to compare 0.96, 0.97 and 0.98-prerelease. I have some metrics here https://github.com/genenetwork/GEMMA/blob/gemma-0.98-preview/test/performance/releases.org Somehow lapack bled into the 0.97 release. So openblas was not used to full potential. A bit embarrassing for someone who claims to control the dependency graph(!?) 0.96 is a single core Eigenlib version and 0.97 went multi-core with openblas. Unfortunately I linked in lapack and an older BLAS which slowed things down. In 0.98 openblas is mostly used and is faster. I can't comment on the MacOS versions, but it is good to check with ldd what was linked in. Another reason not to do static releases. |
@pcarbo running the data of #130 shows for the different versions version 0.97 (with -no-check switch)
Running 0.98-prerelease with the -no-check switch is even faster
But Eigenlib versions 0.95 and 0.96 are actually much slower on Linux - and use only one core version 0.96:
version 0.95:
Conclusion: 0.97 is pretty fast, but you need to switch checking off with the -no-check switch. Without checking later versions compare to 0.96 and earlier behavior without validation. Only do so at your own risk because they are useful, see #72 for example. The overall speed gains are due to the use of multi-core openblas since 0.97. The command I used with the releases on github looks like
I think we can close this issue. |
As referred in #130 creating a new issue here. @pcarbo is 0.96 also faster?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: