The flags are defined in the FFTW documentation: 
http://www.fftw.org/doc/Planner-Flags.html

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:30:30 PM UTC-5, Ethan Anderes wrote:
>
> Hi Tim:
>
> Do you happen to know where I can find some documentation or code snippets 
> on using FFTW.MEASURE or FFTW.PATIENT? I also have some performance 
> critical code that I've failed to speed up with plan_fft and plan_ifft. 
> After reading your suggesting I tried to search for info on FFTW.MEASURE or 
> FFTW.PATIENT but couldn't really find anything (I can't follow the source 
> code either).
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Ethan
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:40:10 AM UTC-7, Tim Holy wrote:
>>
>> Have you profiled it? Is most of the time spent in the ffts? Assuming it 
>> is the 
>> ffts that dominate, try preplanning with FFTW.MEASURE or FFTW.PATIENT. 
>>
>> I seem to recall that some months ago I posted some Matlab/Julia FFT 
>> benchmarks to one of the mailing lists or the github repository. I 
>> suspect 
>> that Matlab has some clever tricks up their sleeve for 
>> fft-planning---they seem 
>> to be able to settle on a good algorithm with much less time than I find 
>> I need 
>> with FFTW.MEASURE or FFTW.PATIENT. It would be lovely to figure out a 
>> better 
>> approach; with 3d FFTs I often find that to get good performance I need 
>> to 
>> devote about 60s to planning for each different size I run, which is a 
>> bit of a 
>> pain. 
>>
>> --Tim 
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 03:35:06 AM Oliver Lylloff wrote: 
>> > Hello all, 
>> > 
>> > I'm computing a 2D convolution with fft and seeing a timing difference 
>> > between Matlab and Julia, with Matlab being about 2x faster than Julia. 
>> > I've simplified my code down to an example (see gist here: 
>> > https://gist.github.com/1oly/51f39a831cef3931e7b8). The bottleneck of 
>> my 
>> > code is evaluating the function 
>> > 
>> > function func(b,x,Fps) 
>> >     r = fftshift(ifft(fft(x).*Fps)) - b; 
>> >     return r 
>> > end 
>> > 
>> > Timings are after one initial run to remove overhead and Matlab is 
>> single 
>> > thread. 
>> > 
>> > Matlab (-singleCompThread) = 0.0026s 
>> > Julia = 0.005s 
>> > 
>> > Does other people see this difference as well? Any suggestions to 
>> possible 
>> > speed-ups? 
>> > 
>> > Best, 
>> > Oliver 
>>
>>

Reply via email to