Hi Karl,
I'm fine with splitting things into something like "Basic Benchmark" and
> "Expert Benchmark" ('view' sounds inappropriate), but as long as both
> benchmark do the same thing, I don't see the problem why the expert version
> cannot be a refinement of the basic version. Could you please elaborate?
The entire issue comes down to this: should basic mode be able to run the
benchmark with expert mode's settings? Or should it always run using the
default settings, no matter what.
My motivation for bringing this up is that one could first do a basic
benchmark, then continue on to playing with the expert mode. The basic mode
can then be used for quick reference, as it will be not be altered by
expert mode runs.
So both modes will have their own results, and their own settings. I will
prevent users from running both modes at the same time, of course.
I hope it's clearer now.
> Looks great, this is a really useful graph (something is fishy with the
> values on the y-axis, though...) :-) Can you please draw the x- and the
> y-axis in logarithmic scale and make the vector increment a multiplicative
> factor (2 by default)?
The axis labels are fishy because they aren't properly set up yet :) Sure,
I can make em logarithmic. What about the default number of increments? I
got it currently set to increment by 1 million from 1M to 15M, so 14
increments. Should there be more increment steps? I need to know so I can
calculate the optimum min and max vector size for x2 factor increment.
This looks quite okay, actually.
Alright, if you say so. But note that in fullscreen it will be a lot more
stretched, and thus a lot less visually appealing. I'll do some more
thinking to try and make it a bit more organized.
There should be a third size for Blas3 part. This will then also make all
> four boxes (Blas3, Sparse, Copy, Vector) equally high, which should improve
> the visual appearance.
So x,y,z dimensions for Blas3? Blas3 currently uses 2D matrices, so I'll
have to modify the benchmark to use 3D matrices?
I don't see a problem with making the string conversion routines public,
> so I just pushed a commit for doing so. :-)
Thanks. Appreciate it.
Regards, Namik
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Karl Rupp <r...@iue.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> Hi Namik,
>
>
> > I'm starting work on the expert view and would appreciate some feedback
>
>> before I get into it more seriously.
>>
>
> thanks for the latest bunch of features :-)
>
>
>
> I've got quite a lot of questions, so bear with me please. Here we go:
>>
>> -Should basic and expert views be changed to independent benchmarking
>> modes, or remain different views of the same banchmark backend? I
>> initially imagined basic & expert views as differently detailed
>> "presentations" of the same benchmark instance (one could run the basic
>> benchmark, and switch to expert view after it's done to examine the
>> results in more detail).
>>
>> However, now I'm thinking it would be better not to mix them. Let basic
>> mode be a simple benchmark with default settings, and let expert be
>> fully customizable & independent. That way the basic mode would be
>> unaffected by expert mode's settings. This would allow basic mode to act
>> as a "safe reference" mode. It would also allow easier usage of
>> benchmark profiles (saving user's expert mode config info for later
>> usage), but that's a story for another time.
>>
>> It's worth mentioning that it's easier to implement two independent
>> modes than to have them share a single benchmark mode.
>>
>> So, which version am I to develop?
>>
>
> I'm fine with splitting things into something like "Basic Benchmark" and
> "Expert Benchmark" ('view' sounds inappropriate), but as long as both
> benchmark do the same thing, I don't see the problem why the expert version
> cannot be a refinement of the basic version. Could you please elaborate?
>
>
>
> -I've implemented line plotting of copy & vector benchmarks. There's
>> still some minor tweaks to be done, but the main functionality is ready.
>> Here's a screenshot for quick reference:
>> http://pokit.org/get/?f4594ac1c0e771184e36ada937772706.jpg
>>
>> The axis labels need to be properly named, legend needs to be placed in
>> a less obtrusive place, graphs selectable through the legend and a few
>> more tweaks.
>>
>> Comments, suggestions & critiques are welcome.
>>
>
> Looks great, this is a really useful graph (something is fishy with the
> values on the y-axis, though...) :-) Can you please draw the x- and the
> y-axis in logarithmic scale and make the vector increment a multiplicative
> factor (2 by default)?
>
>
>
> -The expert tab was getting kinda cluttered. After reducing minimum
>> supported resolution to 1000x700 there was very little room left for all
>> the input widgets. So I decided to remove the plot where final results
>> were drawn. I didn't think this plot was very useful in expert mode,
>> since it shows only one number per benchmark. However, removing it
>> created too much space and now the expert tab looks too stretched x)
>>
>> I need some constructive suggestions on this matter. Here's a screenshot
>> so you know what I'm talking about:
>> http://pokit.org/get/?3c293d1ff6a2bdce38af4c5a226ee3fb.jpg
>>
>
> This looks quite okay, actually.
>
>
>
> Also, did I miss any settings in the benchmark config part? I know there
>> should be a "number of benchmark runs" option, but don't know if it
>> should be global or benchmark-specific.
>>
>
> There should be a third size for Blas3 part. This will then also make all
> four boxes (Blas3, Sparse, Copy, Vector) equally high, which should improve
> the visual appearance.
>
>
>
> Are there any additional benchmark details that need to be shown here?
>>
>
> Not yet, I'd say.
>
>
>
> -Displayed system info in the "system info" screen is incomplete due to
>> several functions in viennacl::ocl::device being private. I wanted to
>> avoid parsing that huge string returned by full_info() function, so I
>> decided to re-implement a customized version of it. Unfortunately, I
>> couldn't re-implement it fully, since functions like:
>> local_mem_type(); platform(); device_type_to_string(iter->type()); are
>> private.
>>
>
> I don't see a problem with making the string conversion routines public,
> so I just pushed a commit for doing so. :-)
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Karli
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ViennaCL-devel mailing list
ViennaCL-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viennacl-devel
