Browse thread
Performance questions, -inline, ...
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Edgar Friendly <thelema314@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Performance questions, -inline, ... |
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:28 -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: > I haven't looked at assembly output yet, but I've run into some unexpected > behavior in my benchmarks. > > This was compiled by ocamlopt -inline 100 -unsafe, the results and code are > below (MIPS is obtained by dividing 50 million iterations by (Unix.times > ()) . Unix.tms_utime it took to run). I haven't included the timing etc. code > (it's part of a larger benchmark). > > What I wonder is why vector-to-vector add is so much faster than (constant) > scalar to vector add. Vectors are preinitialized each time with a 1.0000, > 1.0001, ... sequence. > > Also, the very bad performance from generic vector-to-vector *with* inlining > is another puzzler, whereas generic add of scalar-to-scalar performs > similarly to straight-coded one. > > Cheers, Kuba > > * add1: add scalar to scalar 120 MIPS > * add3: add scalar to vector 250 MIPS > * add5: add vector to vector 320 MIPS > * add2: generic add scalar to scalar 100 MIPS > * add4: generic add vector to vector 38 MIPS > > let start = 1.3 > > (* generic scalar operation *) > let op1 op const nloop = > let accum = ref start in > for i = 1 to nloop do > accum := op !accum const > done > > (* generic vector operation *) > let op2 op const a b (nloop : int) = > let len = Array.length a in > for j = 0 to len-1 do > for i = 0 to len-1 do > b.(i) <- op a.(i) b.(i) > done; > done > > (** addition **) > let add1 nloop = > let accum = ref start in > for i = 1 to nloop do > accum := !accum +. addconst > done > let add2 = op1 ( +. ) addconst > let add3 a b nloop = > let len = Array.length a in > for j = 0 to len-1 do > for i = 0 to len-1 do > b.(i) <- a.(i) +. addconst > done; > done > let add4 = op2 ( +. ) addconst > let add5 a b nloop = > let len = Array.length a in > for j = 0 to len-1 do > for i = 0 to len-1 do > b.(i) <- a.(i) +. b.(i) > done; > done > how about: (* generic vector operation *) let op2 op a b nloop = let len = Array.length a in for j = 0 to nloop do for i = 0 to len-1 do b.(i) <- op a.(i) b.(i) done; done let add4 = op2 (+.) Why does your code have the j loops? You add a constant (or vector element) a number of times equal to the length of your vector? Do you mean for j = 1 to nloop do ... And I'd move that out of the test function if I could, into the testing harness. Arrays of floats have some optimizations built in to the compiler (no boxing, even though they're not 31-bit values), so you should get as good performance as you'll get. E.