ufl team mailing list archive

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

On 25/04/11 23:04, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Monday April 25 2011 14:53:22 Johan Hake wrote:
>> On Monday April 25 2011 14:44:23 Garth N. Wells wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Oups! I guess my "fix" wont get this either... Maybe we need to destroy the
>> form_data object whenever += ... are called?
> 
> I do not think this will be a problem, as += here returns a new object. I am 
> actually not sure how this works, but I think because __iadd__ is _not_ 
> implemented in Form, Python probably turns:
> 
>   L += L 
> 
> into 
> 
>   L = L + L
> 
> which will result in a new form and now problems.
> 

Have you tested it? Your approach is more elegant than my hack, so it
will probably work. I assigned the preprocessed form to the original, i.e.

  a_tmp = preprocess(a)
  a_tmp += a

which broke, I think because of the index renumbering performed by
preprocess.

Garth

> Johan
> 
>> Johan
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ufl
>> Post to     : ufl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ufl
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp