ufl team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 25/04/11 22:29, Johan Hake wrote:
> I am working on a simple solution, where we store everything in the original 
> ufl form.
> 
> I might have something soon.
> 

OK.

I played around with something like this, but had some issues when the
form changes (i.e. a += . . . ) after being preprocessed.

Garth

> Johan
> 
> On Monday April 25 2011 14:26:18 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>> On 25/04/11 22:08, Anders Logg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 07:40:21PM -0000, Garth Wells wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/11 20:00, Johan Hake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday April 25 2011 11:26:36 Garth Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/04/11 18:51, Anders Logg wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 05:11:41PM -0000, Garth Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/04/11 17:53, Johan Hake wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday April 25 2011 08:59:18 Garth Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/11 16:47, Johan Hake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Commenting out the cache is really not a fix. The problem is
>>>>>>>>>>> within dolfin. Isn't there another way to deal with this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a fix if the cache isn't needed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First: How much penalty are there with a disabled memory cache.
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the problem isn't that bad?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't get the point of this cache. The way it is now, a form is
>>>>>>>>>> only preprocessed if it hasn't already been preprocessed, which
>>>>>>>>>> seems ok to me. The old code tried to avoid some preprocessing,
>>>>>>>>>> but it was highly dubious and I doubt that it was effective.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the preprocessing stage actually do take some time. AFAIK
>>>>>>>>> the preproces stage essentially do two things. It creates a
>>>>>>>>> canonical version of the Form so two Forms that are the same, but
>>>>>>>>> constructed at different times are beeing treated equal wrt form
>>>>>>>>> generation. Then are DOLFIN specific guys extracted. I am not sure
>>>>>>>>> what takes the most time. We should probably profiel it... But if
>>>>>>>>> it is the latter we could consider putting another cache in place
>>>>>>>>> which is more robust wrt changing DOLFIN objects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It should be easy to avoid the overhead of preprocessing by keeping
>>>>>>>> the object in scope. If the object changes, the only robust way to
>>>>>>>> make sure that the form is the same as one in the cache is to
>>>>>>>> compare all the data. This requires preprocessing the form, which
>>>>>>>> then defeats the purpose of a cache. It may be possible to add a
>>>>>>>> lightweight preprocess to UFL, but I don't think that it's worth
>>>>>>>> the effort or extra complication.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think a light weight version might be the way to go. This is then
>>>>> stored in memory cache. If we are able to strip such a form for all
>>>>> DOLFIN specific things we would also prevent huge memory leaks with
>>>>> mesh beeing kept.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we always grab DOLFIN specific data from the passed form instead
>>>>> of grabbing from the cache. Not sure how easy this will be to
>>>>> implement, but I think we need to explore it, as the DOLFIN specific
>>>>> part of the form really has nothing to do with the generated Form.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin:
>>>>> Why is it important to have the _count in the repr of the form? I guess
>>>>> that is used in ufl algorithms? Would it be possible to include a
>>>>> second repr function, which did not include the count? This would then
>>>>> be used when the signature is checked for. We could then use that repr
>>>>> to generate a form which is stored in the memory cache. This would
>>>>> then be tripped for any DOLFIN specific objects. This should work as
>>>>> the _count attribute has nothing to do with what code gets generated,
>>>>> but it is essential for internal UFL algorithms, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not very happy with this change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bright side is that slow and correct is a better starting point
>>>>>> than fast but wrong ;).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An easy fix is to attach the preprocessed form to a Form object. This
>>>>>> would work robustly if we can make forms immutable once they've been
>>>>>> compiled. Is it possible to make a Python object immutable?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can probably overload all setattribtue methods which prohibits a
>>>>> user to write to these but it might not be possible to prohibit a user
>>>>> to change attributes on instances owned by the Form. I guess this is
>>>>> similare to the difficulties of preserving constness in C++, but I
>>>>> think it is even harder in Python.
>>>>
>>>> What if we have the FFC jit compiler return the preprocessed form, and
>>>> inside dolfin.Form simply do
>>>>
>>>>     class Form(cpp.Form):
>>>>         def __init__(self, form, . . .. )
>>>>         ....
>>>>         
>>>>         (...., preprocessed_form) = jit(form, . . . . )
>>>>         
>>>>         form = preprocessed_form
>>>>         
>>>>         .....
>>>>
>>>> This way, form will have form_data, and the FFC jit function will know
>>>> not to call ufl.preprocess.
>>>
>>> Here's another strange thing. In the JITObject class, we have two
>>> functions: __hash__ and signature. As far as I understand, the first
>>> is used to located objects (generated code/modules) in the Instant
>>> in-memory cache, while the second is used for the on-disk cache.
>>>
>>> >From some simple tests I did now, it looks like the __hash__ function
>>>>
>>> does not need to any significant speedup. The JIT benchmark runs just
>>> as fast if I call signature from within __hash__.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the __hash__ function must also be broken since it relies
>>> on calling id on the form.
>>>
>>> Ideally, we should get Instant to handle the caching, both in-memory
>>> and on-disk, by providing two functions __hash__ (fast, for in-memory
>>> cache) and signature (slow, for on-disk cache).
>>>
>>> Since __hash__ cannot call id, it must be able to attach a unique
>>> string to the form (perhaps based on an internal counter in FFC).
>>> My suggestion would be to add this to UFL, something like set_hash
>>> and hash (which would return None if set_hash has not been called).
>>> If Martin does not like that, we should be able to handle it on the
>>> DOLFIN side.
>>>
>>> So in conclusion: no in-memory cache in FFC (handled by Instant) and
>>> FFC attaches a hash to incoming forms so that Instant may recognize
>>> them later.
>>
>> The code that I disabled was caching preprocessed forms, so I don't see
>> how this can be handled by Instant.
>>
>> Garth
>>
>>> Maybe even better: Instant checks whether an incoming object has a
>>> set_hash function and if so calls it so it can recognize objects it
>>> sees a second time.
>>>
>>> I'm moving this discussion to the mailing list(s).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anders
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
>>> Post to     : ffc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl
>> Post to     : ufl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp