Re: [eigen] generic unrollers

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Seeing your numbers,  it seems the perfect formula should take into
account the register pressure: without vectorization and only 8
floating point registers the pressure is much higher and the compiler
cannot cache the temporary there, so the evaluation becomes quite more
expensive.  With the new ei_assign_traits we can know in ei_nested if
the vectorization will occur or not  and the compiler defines some
architecture  tokens (_i386, _x86_64, etc.)  such that we can know the
number of registers... so theoretically we can do very sophisticated
tests but this sounds to me a bit overkill :)   the formula with  "<="
sounds a really good compromise to me.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Benoît Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
> attached are my own measurements. Intel Core 1 (32bit), g++ 4.3.0, compiled
> with "-O3 -DNDEBUG", that is without vectorization, to make things more fun
> since you already measured with vectorization.
> As you can see, here, the overall winner is "<=" but not by a big margin. It
> looks like we have yet to find the definitive formula...
> Cheers,
> Benoit
> On Monday 16 June 2008 00:07:22 Gael Guennebaud wrote:
>> >> , for the a+b and 2*a cases I'll
>> >> write an exhaustive benchmark... If there is no obvious reason to eval
>> >> a+b for a 2x2 product then it might be better to not eval since this
>> >> allows the user to perform fine tuning for his specific case that is not
>> >> possible if we do (abusive?) evaluation.
>> >
>> > It's great if you do a benchmark, I don't see any other way of moving
>> > forward!
>> here you go (see attached files). So M,N,K denotes the size of the
>> matrix product:
>> MxN  = MxK  *   KxN.
>> I benchmarked  both (a+b)*c and (2*a)*c,  with 4 different conditions:
>> the current one with "<", the same with "<=", never evaluate, and
>> evaluate if N>1 (e.i. if a coeff is read at least twice). I compiled
>> with gcc-4.2, -O3 -DNDEBUG using float and vectorization enabled.
>> So for this benchmark it is quite clear that, as expected, "<=" works
>> much better than the current "<".  But surprisingly, N>1, which
>> implies the evaluation of (2*a) with N==2 works even slightly better !
>>  This is probably because the compiler can cache the temporaries into
>> the registers (I have a 64bits CPU, so 16 SSE registers). In that case
>> counting for the extra loads and stores is wrong. So we could try this
>> one:
>>     r*SC <= (r-1) * RC
>> which basically means let's forget the extra store and evaluate even
>> if it does not look really better (equality).  In practice this should
>> give better results (at least for gcc-4.2 with a lot of floating point
>> registers).
>> Gael.

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+