instant team mailing list archive

["Martin Sandve Alnæs" <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

You're calling jitobject.signature() in extract_form.

2008/9/11 Martin Sandve Alnæs <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>:
> It's not Instant that uses this time, you have some other bug:
>
> --- Calling FFC JIT compiler ---
> instant.import_module time: 0.330512046814
> Assembling matrix over cells (finished).
> TIME IS 0.335214853287
> Assembly # 0
>
> --- Calling FFC JIT compiler ---
> instant.import_module time: 0.000116109848022
> Assembling matrix over cells (finished).
> TIME IS 0.333696126938
> Assembly # 1
>
> --- Calling FFC JIT compiler ---
> instant.import_module time: 0.0001220703125
> Assembling matrix over cells (finished).
> TIME IS 0.331577062607
>
>
> --
> Martin
>
>
> 2008/9/11 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> I'm still struggling with getting good performance from the in-memory
>> cache in Instant.
>>
>> Below are the results for the JIT benchmark in bench/fem/jit in DOLFIN.
>>
>> When using only the caching provided by Instant, the results are
>>
>>  Disk cache:      0.552037000656
>>  In-memory cache: 0.551201319695
>>
>> But when I turn on the internal FFC cache, I get
>>
>>  Disk cache:      0.556658029556
>>  In-memory cache: 0.00709209442139
>>
>> The speedup is a factor 80. To run the benchmark with or without the
>> FFC cache, change the variable use_ffc_cache in jit.py in FFC.
>>
>> I have printed out some debugging in cache.py in Instant and it seems
>> that the in-memory cache is being used (not the disk cache).
>>
>> --
>> Anders
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iD8DBQFIySAoTuwUCDsYZdERAm6dAJ9lRJinzVE8S2ywfTvXHwUYFcx/6wCfdr8B
>> 1n19Q3HHv1jU/65njM0R39A=
>> =PXoq
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Instant-dev mailing list
>> Instant-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/instant-dev
>>
>>
>



-- 
Martin