Le vendredi 19 septembre 2014 à 12:25 +0200, Milan Bouchet-Valat a
écrit :
> Le jeudi 18 septembre 2014 à 22:35 +0200, Milan Bouchet-Valat a écrit :
> > Le jeudi 18 septembre 2014 à 15:12 -0400, Andreas Noack a écrit :
> > > You are not using a fast BLAS, but the slow reference BLAS which
> > > unfortunately is the default on Linux. An option is to build Julia
> > > from source. Usually it is just to download the source and write make.
> > > Then you'll have Julia compiled with OpenBLAS which is much faster and
> > > comparable in speed to Intel MKL which MATLAB uses.
> > My Fedora RPM package uses OpenBLAS, or at least is supposed to. But
> > indeed only one thread is used in my tests here too. The problem seems
> > to be that LAPACK is not the OpenBLAS one:
> > julia> versioninfo()
> > Julia Version 0.3.0
> > Platform Info:
> >   System: Linux (x86_64-redhat-linux)
> >   CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU       M 450  @ 2.40GHz
> >   WORD_SIZE: 64
> >   BLAS: libopenblas (DYNAMIC_ARCH NO_AFFINITY)
> >   LAPACK: liblapack
> >   LIBM: libopenlibm
> >   LLVM: libLLVM-3.3
> > 
> > And indeed I'm passing USE_SYSTEM_LAPACK=1. I didn't know it would incur
> > such a slowdown. Is there a way to get Julia use the system's OpenBLAS
> > version of LAPACK?
> Replying to myself, it appears I can set LAPACK=-lopenblas and
> LAPACKNAME=openblas when calling make. These should probably be made the
> default, even when USE_SYSTEM_LAPACK=1, so that people have to
> explicitly ask for the slow LAPACK.
> 
> The problem is, it doesn't make Julia use more than one thread, even
> when calling Base.blas_set_num_threads(4). I've even removed all
> liblapack* files to be sure it isn't used, no luck. So I guess there's a
> problem with Fedora's OpenBLAS, I'll have a look.
OK, that's because the maintainer of Fedora's OpenBLAS disabled
optimized functions like LU after finding a bug in them some time ago.
Now it appears to be fixed upstream, so the performance tuning can
likely be brought back. I've filed a bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144414


Regards

Reply via email to