Hello !
This all looks pretty good. Good job!
2014-08-12 3:40 GMT+02:00 Namik Karovic <namik.karo...@gmail.com>:
> 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.
>
>
I would rather lean towards re-using the expert settings for the basic
benchmarks, and to provide some "reset" button, so that if one messes
things up he could still retrieve the original basic results.
>
>> 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.
>
It's actually important to have finer grained data for small vectors, and
more spaced points as the data grows bigger : this is why it is better to
choose the sizes according to a a^x law than an a*x one. You can experiment
other values than 2 for a, if you want. If I were you, I'd probably go with
something like :
[int(1.5**x) for x in range(30,45)]
That is, an increment 1.5 factor from ~190,000 to ~55,000,000
>
> 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?
>
>
Blas3 multiplies two matrices : A(size1, size2) * B(size2, size3), hence
the three sizes required :-p Not sure about what kind of 3D matrices you
are referring to! ;)
In any case, great job!
Philippe
> 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
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ViennaCL-devel mailing list
ViennaCL-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viennacl-devel
