On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 22:33 +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> Hi Michał,
>
> Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 01:37 -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > > Different BLAS/LAPACK implementations are expected to be
> > > compatible
> > > to each other in both the API and ABI level. They can be used as
> > > drop-in replacement to the others. This sounds nice, but the
> > > difference
> > > in SONAME hampered the gentoo integration of well-optimized ones.
> >
> > If SONAMEs are different, then they are not compatible by
> > definition.
>
> This blas/lapack SONAME difference is a special case. They are
> parially
> compatible in the sense that every alternative implementation of blas
> is
> a superset of the reference one.
>
> Therefore linking to the reference at build time will make sure the
> compatibility with the alternative implementations, even with
> different
> SONAME.
>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Similar to Debian's update-alternatives mechanism, Gentoo's
> > > eselect
> > > is good at dealing with drop-in replacements as well. My
> > > preliminary
> > > investigation suggests that eselect is enough for enabling
> > > BLAS/LAPACK
> > > runtime switching. Hence, the proposed solution is eselect-based:
> > >
> > > * Every BLAS/LAPACK implementation should provide generic
> > > library
> > > and eselect candidate libraries at the same time. Taking
> > > netlib,
> > > BLIS and OpenBLAS as examples:
> > >
> > > reference:
> > >
> > > usr/lib64/blas/reference/libblas.so.3 (SONAME=libblas.so.3)
> > > -- default BLAS provider
> > > -- candidate of the eselect "blas" unit
> > > -- will be symlinked to usr/lib64/libblas.so.3 by eselect
> >
> > /usr/lib64 is not supposed to be modified by eselect, it's package
> > manager area. Yes, I know a lot of modules still do that but
> > that's no
> > reason to make things worse when people are putting significant
> > effort
> > to actually improve things.
>
> Sorry, I didn't see your reply before mine.
>
> We are going to use the LDPATH and ld.so.conf mechanism suggested by
> you.
>
> > > usr/lib64/lapack/reference/liblapack.so.3
> > > (SONAME=liblapack.so.3)
> > > -- default LAPACK provider
> > > -- candidate of the eselect "lapack" unit
> > > -- will be symlinked to usr/lib64/liblapack.so.3 by
> > > eselect
> > >
> > > blis (doesn't provide LAPACK):
> > >
> > > usr/lib64/libblis.so.2 (SONAME=libblis.so.2)
> > > -- general purpose
> > >
> > > usr/lib64/blas/blis/libblas.so.3 (SONAME=libblas.so.3)
> > > -- candidate of the eselect "blas" unit
> > > -- will be symlinked to usr/lib64/libblas.so.3 by eselect
> > > -- compiled from the same set of object files as
> > > libblis.so.2
> > >
> > > openblas:
> > >
> > > usr/lib64/libopenblas.so.0 (SONAME=libopenblas.so.0)
> > > -- general purpose
> > >
> > > usr/lib64/blas/openblas/libblas.so.3 (SONAME=libblas.so.3)
> > > -- candidate of the eselect "blas" unit
> > > -- will be symlinked to usr/lib64/libblas.so.3 by eselect
> > > -- compiled from the same set of object files as
> > > libopenblas.so.0
> > >
> > > usr/lib64/lapack/openblas/liblapack.so.3
> > > (SONAME=liblapack.so.3)
> > > -- candidate of the eselect "lapack" unit
> > > -- will be symlinked to usr/lib64/liblapack.so.3 by
> > > eselect
> > > -- compiled from the same set of object files as
> > > libopenblas.so.0
> > >
> > > This solution is similar to Debian's[3]. This solution achieves
> > > our
> > > goal,
> > > and it requires us to patch upstream build systems (same to
> > > Debian).
> > > Preliminary demonstration for this solution is available, see
> > > below.
> >
> > So basically the three walls of text say in round-about way that
> > you're
> > going to introduce custom hacks to recompile libraries with
> > different
> > SONAME. Ok.
> > > Is this solution reliable?
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > * A similar solution has been used by Debian for many years.
> > > * Many projects call BLAS/LAPACK libraries through FFI, including
> > > Julia.
> > > (See Julia's standard library: LinearAlgebra)
> > >
> > > Proposed Changes
> > > ----------------
> > >
> > > 1. Deprecate sci-libs/{blas,cblas,lapack,lapacke}-reference from
> > > gentoo
> > > main repo. They use exactly the same source tarball. It's not
> > > quite
> > > helpful to package these components in a fine-grained manner.
> > > A
> > > single
> > > sci-libs/lapack package is enough.
> >
> > Where's the gain in that?
> > > 2. Merge the "cblas" eselect unit into "blas" unit. It is
> > > potentially
> > > harmful when "blas" and "cblas" point to different
> > > implementations.
> > > That means "app-eselect/eselect-cblas" should be deprecated.
> > >
> > > 3. Update virtual/{blas,cblas,lapack,lapacke}. BLAS/LAPACK
> > > providers
> > > will be registered in their dependency information.
> > >
> > > Note, ebuilds for BLAS/LAPACK reverse dependencies are expected
> > > to work
> > > with these changes correctly without change. For example, my
> > > local
> > > numpy-1.16.1 compilation was successful without change.
> > >
> > > Preliminary Demonstration
> > > -------------------------
> > >
> > > The preliminary implementation is available in my personal
> > > overlay[4].
> > > A simple sanity test script `check-cpp.sh` is provided to
> > > illustrate
> > > the effectiveness of the proposed solution.
> > >
> > > The script `check-cpp.sh` compiles two C++ programs -- one calls
> > > general
> > > matrix-matrix multiplication from BLAS, while another one calls
> > > general
> > > singular value decomposition from LAPACK. Once compiled, this
> > > script
> > > will switch different BLAS/LAPACK implementations and run the C++
> > > programs
> > > without recompilation.
> > >
> > > The preliminary result is avaiable here[5]. (CPU=Power9,
> > > ARCH=ppc64le)
> > > From the experimental results, we find that
> > >
> > > For (512x512) single precision matrix multiplication:
> > > * reference BLAS takes ~360 ms
> > > * BLIS takes ~70 ms
> > > * OpenBLAS takes ~10 ms
> > >
> > > For (512x512) single precision singular value decomposition:
> > > * reference LAPACK takes ~1900 ms
> > > * BLIS (+reference LAPACK) takes ~1500 ms
> > > * OpenBLAS takes ~1100 ms
> > >
> > > The difference in computation speed illustrates the effectiveness
> > > of
> > > the proposed solution. Theoretically, any other package could
> > > take
> > > advantage from this solution without any recompilation as long as
> > > it's linked against a library with SONAME.
> >
> > An actual ABI compliance test, e.g. done using abi-compliance-
> > checker
> > would be more interesting.
>
> As said above, the symbols don't need to be 1-1 copy of each other.
> Any
> library which is a superset of the reference one will work.
Again, I'm willing to accept this under a USE="lapack_targets_virtual"
configuration, but wholesale editing of DT_NEEDED entries is definitely
too scary and too invasive for most non-sci/hpc users of Gentoo. Again,
for 99% of users, OpenBLAS will be the right trade-off between
performance and customizability. Every recompilation of libreoffice or
chromium will devour more CPU cycles than switching between USE-flag
implementations.
