Le samedi 23 avril 2016 à 04:52 -0700, K leo a écrit : > I did some timing measures running the same code. On Ubuntu 15.10 > where Julia uses 200% of CPU, the code runs in 2500 seconds. On > Ubuntu 16.04 where Julia takes 100% CPU, the code runs in 2700 > seconds. I don't know what causes Julia to use less CPU on 16.04, > whether being the Linux version or the Julia version. So given the > little difference in time, perhaps the conclusion is Ubuntu 16.04 is > more efficient using hardware resources. Any comments? This is probably due to a newer OpenBLAS being more efficient. Anyway, the Ubuntu PPA is no longer maintained. The recommended solution is to use generic Linux binaries from the Julia website.
Regards > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, K leo <cnbi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > Prior to running Ubuntu 16.04, I get Julia from the PPA, and > > > run it simply > > > > like: > > > > > > > >> julia > > > > > > > > Then when I run julia code, "top" shows CPU usage of Julia as > > > something like > > > > 200% (I have two cores). > > > > > > What code are you running. Any pre-build version should run julia > > > code > > > only on one thread. Any other thread are created by libraries > > > like > > > fftw or openblas. > > > > I run my own code which does not directly require fftw or openblas. > > The same code runs on the version on Ubuntu 15.10, it uses 200% > > CPU, but on the version on 16.04, it only uses 100%. Note the > > versions of Julia on the two systems are likely from different > > builds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now on 16.04, julia only runs upto 100% of CPU. The version of > > > julia is > > > > said to maintained by "Ubuntu Developers > > > > <ubuntu-dev...@lists.ubuntu.com>" > > > > > > > > What is happening?
