English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Re: Why OCaml sucks
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-05-13 (00:41)
From: Gerd Stolpmann <info@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks

Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 14:22 +0100 schrieb Richard Jones:
> This is just barely faster than Jon's OCaml version using message
> passing (12% faster on my test machine[0]).  Which just seems to show
> that the overhead of message passing _isn't_ the problem here[1].

I've just written my own distributed version. You find my comments and
timings here:


The code is here:


In this (very unoptimized) multiplier message passing accounts for ~25%
of the runtime. Even for 2 cores there is already a speedup. 10 cores
(over a network) are about 4 times faster than a single core without
message passing.


> Perhaps it's the bounds checking in the assignment back to the matrix?
> Anyhow, in real life situations we'd all be using a super-optimized
> hand-coded-in-assembly matrix multiplication library (LAPACK?), so
> this is all very academic.
> Rich.
> [0] Quad core Intel hardware:
> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad  CPU   Q9450  @ 2.66GHz
> [1] Creation of the result matrix and copying it to shared memory is
> almost instantaneous in my tests.
Gerd Stolpmann * Viktoriastr. 45 * 64293 Darmstadt * Germany 
gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de          http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
Phone: +49-6151-153855                  Fax: +49-6151-997714