|Re: [eigen] Back from google|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Back from google
- From: Rohit Garg <rpg.314@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:17:55 +0530
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=KkLWLw4iFE/ZdpcNHXNVgck3iyzXzqhNLBf7A0qaEL4=; b=G/LRiw4rgJsjQaITj1Jemb8PNtgMenbRaJEVkoVyjBELekMNeLwZgdmxiYzPUTTVmX ttV/L/G1kYka3STj9h013BI9cmtN1HQ6dvEP5b2OVZIihTuVEuJeE6vTv916ytb6A5lX 0A1VnFs3NznZQhpHYjZ3YA2J7PzrchmZ61mOs=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=SqJHxJ6ppywz6+PK/BDs61lfd/iDdRnArq6shnO4useY317hNaSpVbCIBURbmhq8jt EGZkH/LNkY2Um8iB77jC4Ww/SbkvIuOAIV50Gi2IjflRe3nO8TyVXpckYYHwEpOE5h9u GevRxfyq3cj850ivMS7FIPwvtY9p6vSSnelFY=
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm just back from Google offices in Mountain View where I had lunch
> with 4 Googlers including Keir.
> It's very likely that they start using Eigen in a few months for a few
> projects, so the idea is that they start right away using (a
> pre-release of) Eigen 3.0 (more on that later, i want us to start
> discussing roadmaps soon but i need to merge my fork first).
Google using eigen3, :)
> So the very vague timeline is that at some point during Spring 2010 we
> release usable betas of eigen 3.0 with a 99% finalized API and they
> start playing with that.
> Now let's discuss what came out of the conversation, as to how to make
> Eigen 3 most useful to them.
> 1. The biggest requirement is to guarantee reliability/precision. A
> big part of that is already happening, e.g. that's part of what the
> refactor_solve_api fork is about. But we need to go beyond that and
> actually i had been thinking for a while that, in addition to our
> current unit tests that don't aim to test precision, we need a bunch
> of precision-oriented tests. Over the past months, as i was more and
> more concerned with that, I've already written several small programs
> to test that, so i have to turn them into official unit tests.
> Moreover one of the Googlers (was it Keir?) had a great idea: a great
> test would be to run the big BLAS/LAPACK test suites against a
> BLAS/LAPACK lib implemented on top of Eigen. Since Gael already
> implemented BLAS level 1 and 3 on top of Eigen (the blas/ directory),
> we're already almost able to start doing that! Also, when we write
> custom precision-oriented tests, we could have a peek at the datafiles
> of the LAPACK test suite, and steal their tricky matrices.
> 2. They also had a requirement that a single executable should be able
> to run fast on various hardware with various cache size. So here the
> big problem is that we currently only allow to specify the cache size
> as a compile time constant, namely a preprocessor #define
> EIGEN_TUNE_FOR_CPU_CACHE_SIZE. One of the Googlers (Matthew, i think)
> suggested that it might be as easy as defining
> EIGEN_TUNE_FOR_CPU_CACHE_SIZE to be the name of some variable defined
> in the application. Thinking again about it, there is one little
> problem here: we are passing that to ei_meta_sqrt, so currently it has
> to be a compile time constant. In the case of a runtime parameter, the
> sqrt would have to be computed at runtime. What should we do?
This is not hard, but we will have to sacrifice *some* source
portability for it. We can use the CPUID instruction to set this
parameter. This will take some x86 assembly, so there is an immediate
problem of MSVC style inline assembly vs GCC inline assembly. Of
course, PowerPC and ARM won't like it. We could also make this option
available at compile-time, ie an EIGEN_USE_CPUID compiler flag.
> * Just use sqrt() ? The questions are: are we OK to always pay for a
> sqrt here? This seems like unneeded extra performance degradation for
> small dyn-size matrices (of course it's negligible for large
> matrices). In the default case of a compile-time constant, GCC >= 4.3
> is able to compute the sqrt at compile-time, but i wonder about MSVC
> and ICC.
> * Introduce a separate preprocessor #define to let the user specify a
> runtime cache size variable name?
> Or going farther into the direction of binary libraries:
> * Introduce a preprocessor symbol to define some global variables,
> e.g. one for the cpu cache size? We'd need to tell the user that if he
> wants to use the corresponding feature, then one of his source file
> must define that macro before #including Eigen.
> There is of course always the option of creating an optional tiny
> binary lib, but i still don't see a compelling reason to do that...
Department of Physics
Indian Institute of Technology