octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: memory alignment and blas


From: Paul Thomas
Subject: Re: memory alignment and blas
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:54:49 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225

On an Athlon 1700 running RH9, I see at most a 10% worsening with DOFFSET = 1 for example. Replacing octave_numeric_buffer with double, effects a 20% improvement in time. With DOFFSET=0 and DALIGN=16, the execution time is almost exactly 50ms.

PaulT

Paul Kienzle wrote:

I was playing a bit with memory alignment to see what
effect it would have on the performance of DGEMM.

For pentium II, I didn't see any performance effect.
This is with Debian and atlas3-base installed.

For PPC G4, unaligned memory shows 7.5x worse
performance than aligned memory.  4 byte aligned
memory shows < 10% performance drop.  8 byte
alignment is indistinguishable from 128 byte alignment.

As far as I can tell, the OS X allocator returns 8 byte
aligned memory, so no special effort is required
to support it.

My octave version is too out of date on MIPS to give
any performance numbers.

I'm attaching the code I used to test this.

Paul Kienzle
address@hidden





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]