This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at ocaml.org.

Re: Optimizing Float Ref's (Yaron Minsky)
• Bertrand Jeannet
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
 Date: -- (:) From: Bertrand Jeannet Subject: Re: Optimizing Float Ref's (Yaron Minsky)
```
The problem may not only be unboxing, but also allocation.

In your first code, you allocate two new cells each time you enter in
the j-loop (one for the boxed float, and one for the reference cell
"sum" pointing to it).
You should first move the line "let sum = ref 0.0" before the i-loop and
just write at the same place "sum := 0".

I will not be as efficient as your second version (because you still
have boxing), but it should still be much better.

Bertrand

> On Aug 28, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Will M Farr <farr@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm running OCaml 3.11.1, and I noticed something strange in some
>> native code for matrix multiply today.  The code was
>>
>> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>>      (nk2,nj) = dims m2 and
>>      (sni,snj) = dims store in
>>  assert(nk=nk2);
>>  assert(ni=sni);
>>  assert(nj=snj);
>>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>>    let row1 = m1.(i) and
>>        srow = store.(i) in
>>    for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>>      let sum = ref 0.0 in   (* Un-boxed float ref? *)
>>      for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>>        let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>>        let x = Array.unsafe_get row1 k and
>>            y = Array.unsafe_get row2 j in
>>        sum := !sum +. x*.y
>>      done;
>>      Array.unsafe_set srow j !sum
>>    done
>>  done;
>>  store
>>
>> (I compiled with ocamlopt.)  It multiplies the matrices (represented
>> as arrays of arrays of floats) m1 and m2 together and puts the  result
>> into the matrix store.  Profiling the code, I noticed a call  to
>> caml_modify during the execution of this function!  Turns out  that
>> the culprit was the float ref "sum".  Changing to the following  code
>> (which eliminates the float ref, and uses the <- and .( )  operators
>> instead of unsafe_set and unsafe_get) eliminated that  call, and sped
>> things up tremendously:
>>
>> let mmmul store m1 m2 =
>>  let (ni,nk) = dims m1 and
>>      (nk2,nj) = dims m2 in
>>  for i = 0 to ni - 1 do
>>    let row1 = m1.(i) and
>>        srow = store.(i) in
>>    for j = 0 to nj - 1 do
>>      srow.(j) <- 0.0;
>>      for k = 0 to nk - 1 do
>>        let row2 = Array.unsafe_get m2 k in
>>        let x = row1.(k) and
>>            y = row2.(j) in
>>        srow.(j) <- srow.(j) +. x*.y
>>      done
>>    done
>>  done;
>>  store
>>
>> But, I thought that float ref's were automatically unboxed by the
>> compiler when they didn't escape the local context.  Is this a
>> complier bug, is there a bad interaction with unsafe_get and
>> unsafe_set, or is there something else going on that I don't
>> understand?  Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Will
>> _______________________________________________
>> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
>> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
>> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
>> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

--

Projet POP-ART, INRIA Rhône-Alpes
Zirst - 655 avenue de l'Europe - Montbonnot
F-38334 Saint Ismier Cedex
Fax: +33 (0)4 76 61 52 52
Tel: +33 (0)4 76 61 52 76
Bertrand.Jeannet@inrialpes.fr

```