Re: [Matlisp-users] Calling Fortran routines on short arrays

[Nicolas N. <Nic...@iw...>]

Raymond Toy <to...@rt...> writes:

> >>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Neuss <Nic...@iw...> writes:
> 
> 
>     Nicolas> From the numbers it is obvious that the call is even much more expensive
>     Nicolas> than a daxpy for 256 double-floats.  How comes?
> 
>     >> as the daxpy for the case +N-short+=256, while calling Lisp functions is
>     >> much faster.  Is it possible to cut down these costs?
>     >> 
>     >> Thanks, Nicolas.
>     >> 
> 
> I'll try to look into this.  There's probably some improvement to be
> had, but I doubt we can improve it enough for you.  I think the
> overhead comes from computing the necessary addresses, and also having
> to turn off GC during the computation.  IIRC, this involves an
> unwind-protect which does add quite a bit of code.

Yes, you are right.  I see this now.  If switching off multithreading is
expensive, there is a problem here.  I don't know enough of these things to
help you here.

> Note that I also noticed long ago that a simple vector add in Lisp was
> at least as fast as calling BLAS.

Probably this was before I started using Matlisp.

> However, having everything go through FFI to BLAS at least allows us to
> take advantage of any special libraries that might be available.
>
> I, however, am not opposed to implementing the BLAS in Lisp.  Other
> LAPACK routines will still use the original BLAS, and Lisp code can
> get the faster versions.  Will need thinking, design, and
> experimentation.

I will have to do this at least for a small part of the routines, if the
foreign call cannot be achieved with really little overhead (say two times
a Lisp function call).  I want to implement flexible sparse block matrices,
and choosing Matlisp data for the blocks would be a possibility.  But the
blocks can be small, therefore I cannot make compromises when operating on
those blocks.

Thanks, Nicolas.

P.S.: BTW, how does ACL perform in this respect?  Just today I read Duane
writing about interoperability of ACL with C and C++.  If the overhead we
are suffering from is necessary in general, this might be quite a problem
for some applications.