This is really great research. I've often wondered what the difference really is, and why it has to be so complicated. It seems the answer is there isn't much difference and it shouldn't be as complex. As for your next steps, would you propose that cmake be brought up to parity? It seems strange that it causes slowness and if so, it shouldn't be recommended for now. Also, testing for windows compliers might be quite important as install stats suggest a significant portion of windows users. Wouldn't this nudge the decision of what to use as a rule going forward? I ran into this submodule openmp issue on windows myself. How does that get fixed? Do we have to repackage all of the submodules to make sure they use the recommended implementation or they use what the system expects?
Cheers, Aaron On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 04:37 Anton Chernov <mecher...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear MXNet community, > > Due to multiple problems related to OpenMP and stale proposed change [1] we > have been working on gathering performance data on the impact of using > different OpenMP implementations with MXNet (great thanks to Stanislav > Tsukrov for the hard work). The results can be found here [2]. > > As a short summary of the investigation: The difference between different > compilers is insignificant. Native OpenMP implementations (more or less > recent) perform equally (<5% difference). See more details in the document. > > Please review the document and share your thoughts on the topic. > > Thanks! > > Best > Anton > > [1] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4827f0f742b6e7e070da350ea81226d059401527f3072ce8b33c1fdf@ > <dev.mxnet.apache.org> > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2wclBg >
