Re: [eigen] BLAS backend

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

2009/10/15 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> 2009/10/15 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > Also note how the matrix copies between the CPU and GPU are extremely
>> > costly... So, now if we agree that a BLAS backend is only worth it to
>> > get
>> > GPU support
>> There are other use cases:
>>  - parallelized on several cpus/cores
> well, I hope we'll have multithreading in Eigen soon... Actually, doing it
> the BLAS way is nearly trivial. The main reason why we still don't have
> multithreading is because we want to do something smarter providing more
> control to the user, blabla...

I can see how your blocked products are easy to parallelize, so indeed
it seems that there's a big difference again between BLAS and LAPACK
 ---> BLAS : we can parallelize across CPUs , and for the question of
giving control to the user, let's check what other libraries do; in
the worst case we might have to introduce a tiny optional binary
library just for that feature, to host a few static variables...? Just
a quick idea.
 ---> LAPACK: we want backends there already in the single CPU case.


Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+