On Thursday 15 January 2009, dmharvey wrote:
> On Jan 14, 5:41 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> > There's only one conclusion possible. The Schoenhage/Nussbaumer FFT
> > David has written in zn_poly for multiplication of polys over Z/pZ is
> > truly much better on Intel than the Kronecker Segmentation/Scho
On Jan 14, 5:41 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> There's only one conclusion possible. The Schoenhage/Nussbaumer FFT
> David has written in zn_poly for multiplication of polys over Z/pZ is
> truly much better on Intel than the Kronecker Segmentation/Schoenhage-
> Strassen FFT method used in FLINT.
zn_pol
Here's some more info:
It's not a caching issue. I've tried adjusting the expected cache size
in FLINT from very small to very large. It makes little difference.
It's quite amazing that these Intel machines appear completely
oblivious to how big their caches are.
The total time taken for the lar
Properly tuned, for a length 10^6 multiplication with 40 bit modulus,
zn_poly takes 1.59s and FLINT 2.22s on sage.math. So zn_poly is quite
a bit faster on Intel machines than FLINT. No idea why that is. But it
is very impressive!!
Bill.
On 14 Jan, 20:37, Bill Hart wrote:
> I did some more timi
I did some more timings and I've been bitten by the timing
irregularities on my Opteron again.
For length 1,000,000 and 40 bits FLINT takes about 1.57s and zn_poly
1.46s. I tried using the --use-flint option in zn_poly, but presumably
this multiplication is outside the KS range and so the timing
On the 2.4GHz Opteron zn_poly reports that it takes 1.46s for this
multiplication. That is certainly faster than FLINT. So it looks like
zn_poly really is better for longer length polynomials now.
It's not clear what the improvement was, but it looks like better
tuning code, from the zn_poly CHAN
On a 2.4Ghz Opteron FLINT takes 1.92s for the multiplication. So at
least there is no serious speed regression in FLINT.
I now need to time zn_poly and see if it does better than FLINT on the
Opteron.
Bill.
On 14 Jan, 17:09, Bill Hart wrote:
> I did the timings from FLINT directly and indeed i
I did the timings from FLINT directly and indeed it takes 2.5s for a
40 bit modulus and length 10^6. This agrees with what comes out of
Martin's version of Sage.
So, only 3 possibilities remain:
1) Serious speed regression in FLINT
2) David's improved tuning for zn_poly *really* makes a differen
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> I'm trying to inspect the gmp in your installation to see if maybe the
> Core 2 patches aren't installed or something, but I'm having trouble
> opening the spkg named gmp-4.2.2.p1.fake. Is that where the gmp is? I
> thought these were just tar
I'm trying to inspect the gmp in your installation to see if maybe the
Core 2 patches aren't installed or something, but I'm having trouble
opening the spkg named gmp-4.2.2.p1.fake. Is that where the gmp is? I
thought these were just tar files or bzip2 files?
Bill.
On 14 Jan, 16:29, Martin Albre
On Wednesday 14 January 2009, Bill Hart wrote:
> I checked back through the correspondence I had and the timing I am
> thinking of is for a 40 bit modulus at length 1,000,000. David and I
> compared at the time and zn_poly version 0.4.1 took 2.06s compared to
> FLINT at 2.37s, at that stage, on th
On Wednesday 14 January 2009, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 13 Jan, 12:17, Martin Albrecht
>
> wrote:
> > The following is multiplication of two random polynomials over
> > GF(140737488355328) of length n
> >
> > n FLINT zn_poly
> >
> > 131072 0.292 0.220
> > 262144 0.612 0.454
> >
I checked back through the correspondence I had and the timing I am
thinking of is for a 40 bit modulus at length 1,000,000. David and I
compared at the time and zn_poly version 0.4.1 took 2.06s compared to
FLINT at 2.37s, at that stage, on the old sage.math.
The zn_poly changelog shows that Davi
On 13 Jan, 12:17, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> The following is multiplication of two random polynomials over
> GF(140737488355328) of length n
>
> n FLINT zn_poly
> 131072 0.292 0.220
> 262144 0.612 0.454
> 524288 1.522 1.028
> 1048576 3.136 2.096
These are unexpected
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
>
>> In particular the class
>>
>> cdef class Polynomial_zmod_flint(Polynomial_template):
>>
>> only has like 5 or 6 methods. Just make a version of this class that is
>>
>> cdef class Polynomial_zmod_flint_and_ntl(Polynomial_template):
>>
> In particular the class
>
> cdef class Polynomial_zmod_flint(Polynomial_template):
>
> only has like 5 or 6 methods. Just make a version of this class that is
>
> cdef class Polynomial_zmod_flint_and_ntl(Polynomial_template):
>
> say that defines versions of all 5 or 6 methods that use both ntl
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> this is a continuation of a thread on [sage-nt] on arithmetic over Z/nZ[x] for
> n word sized.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-nt/browse_thread/thread/6e415c61089ea435
>
> It started about #4965
>
> http://trac.sa
17 matches
Mail list logo
