[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization |
Date: |
Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:59:33 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-7.6.20060mdk (X11/20050322) |
David Grohmann wrote:
> David Bateman wrote:
>
>>David Grohmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So I have some code that runs in matlab (on a P3 500 mhz 512 MB ram
>>>windows box) about 133 times faster (33 minutes to complete something
>>>instead of 15 seconds) than it does in octave( on a 4 processor 3.6 ghz
>>>xeon machine with an ungodly amount of ram linux box). my guess is that
>>>it is the use of loops and not vectorization.
>>>
>>>Is such a large performance hit likely caused by loops vs vectorization
>>>or might there be another explanation besides that?
>>>
>>>I've searched online and haven't found anything to profile m files with,
>>>other than in matlab. I have profiled it in matlab and sure enough it
>>>does run the lines in the loops many (hundreds of thousands of times)
>>>times but only one of the loops actually takes up a lot of run time.
>>>This would probably be a good candidate for vectorizing. I suspect.
>>>
>>>So is there anything out there for profiling or stepping through code in
>>>an m file in octave?
>>>
>>>I know I haven't posted the offending code, that is because I currently
>>>don't have the authorization to do that. So my general question is how
>>>do people profile their code and what not. I'm not asking you to fix my
>>>code for me.
>>>
>>>Thank you for any help you provide,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My guess is that you are running a cygwin binary version of octave.
>>There is a major bug in the setjmp/longjmp exception handler of g++ for
>>versions later than 3.2 that causes major pain to octave. As far as I
>>know this bug in cygwin as not yet been addressed. The result is
>>sssllloooowwww code..
>>
>>D.
>>
>>
> Octave was on a linux machine, matlab was on a windows machine.
>
> However it seems that vectorizing the code makes up the difference. I
> didn't know that such a performance boost would happen with vectorization.
>
The setjmp/longjmp issue is felt most in loops on cygwin..
D.
--
David Bateman address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph)
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax)
The information contained in this communication has been classified as:
[x] General Business Information
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization, John W. Eaton, 2006/07/01
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization, David Bateman, 2006/07/01
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization, David Grohmann, 2006/07/05
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization,
David Bateman <=
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization, John W. Eaton, 2006/07/05
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization, Andy Adler, 2006/07/05
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization, David Grohmann, 2006/07/05
- Message not available
- Re: profiler and/or debugger, loops vs vectorization, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso, 2006/07/05
- Re: loops vs vectorization, Robert A.Macy, 2006/07/05
- Re: loops vs vectorization, Rafael Almeida, 2006/07/05
- Re: loops vs vectorization, Robert A.Macy, 2006/07/05
- Re: loops vs vectorization, Ozzy Lash, 2006/07/05
- Re: loops vs vectorization, Robert A.Macy, 2006/07/05
- Re: loops vs vectorization, Ozzy Lash, 2006/07/06