> On the one hand it would be nice to actually know whether posix_memalign is important, before making api decisions on this basis.
FWIW: On the lightweight IBM cores that the extremely popular BlueGene machines were based on, accessing unaligned memory raised system faults. The default behavior of these machines was to terminate the program if more than 1000 such errors occurred on a given process, and an environment variable allowed you to terminate the program if *any* unaligned memory access occurred. This is because unaligned memory accesses were 15x (or more) slower than aligned memory access. The newer /Q chips seem to be a little more forgiving of this, but I think one can in general expect allocated memory alignment to be an important performance technique for future high performance computing architectures. A On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, R Hattersley <rhatters...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > For some reason the Python issue 21223 didn't show any activity until I > > logged in to post my patch. At which point I saw that haypo had already > > submitted pretty much exactly the same patch. *sigh* That was pretty > much a > > waste of time then. :-| > > Oh, that sucks :-(. I knew that there was a patch posted there, but I > was travelling yesterday when you posted :-/. > > -n > > -- > Nathaniel J. Smith > Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh > http://vorpus.org > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
