instant team mailing list archive

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

Instant has quite a few assertions now, compared to the memory cache
it may take a little time.

-- 
Martin


2008/9/11 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 06:53:22PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> You're calling jitobject.signature() in extract_form.
>
> Thanks! I did this since I needed to know the name of the form to
> extract from the module, but it worked fine to use module.__name__.
>
> It works fine now. Here are timings with and without the FFC cache:
>
>  Disk cache:      0.552545070648
>  In-memory cache: 0.00687968730927
>
>  Disk cache:      0.555771112442
>  In-memory cache: 0.00716300010681
>
> The difference is 4% and the time is less than 0.01 seconds so I'm
> removing the FFC cache. Some of the difference is extra calls needed
> in the JIT compiler to extract the form from the module so Instant
> accounts only for part of the difference, I don't know how much.
>
> In conclusion, FFC and Instant work fine now and the JIT code in FFC
> is short and neat.
>
> --
> Anders
>
>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFIyV3+TuwUCDsYZdERApq5AJ9fhOsIWM5kra8b1bIGDBjLWe7jSACeNqfV
> O3ZhobvuEVWjkVUUM/vlQjM=
> =ysyv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>