From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:07:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200805121907.12615.jon@ffconsultancy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080512132223.GA24858@annexia.org>
On Monday 12 May 2008 14:22:24 Richard Jones wrote:
> This is just barely faster than Jon's OCaml version using message
> passing (12% faster on my test machine[0]).
On this machine, the Ancient-based implementation is 30-40% faster than the
message passing OCaml.
The important question is: how many operations must we be doing for
parallelism to be worthwhile? The answer is of fundamental importance.
Plotting the graphs, we find that parallelism is faster in F# for n>32 and in
OCaml for n>150 for this O(n^3) task. Therefore, OCaml is two orders of
magnitude slower than F# at spawning parallel computations. Moreover, to get
this performance from OCaml you had to sacrifice safety.
> Which just seems to show that the overhead of message passing _isn't_ the
> problem here[1].
Well, OCaml currently offers several different approaches to parallelism that
are all extremely inefficient. The parallel GC implementation being funded by
Jane St. will completely remove this performance problem with OCaml in this
context but it will not scale as well as Microsoft's concurrent GC and will
suffer from the same stalling.
This is why I believe that project is of incredible importance.
> Perhaps it's the bounds checking in the assignment back to the matrix?
Actually it was the polymorphic array maps and copies rather than the bounds
checking within them. So I hand rolled optimized float array array copying
code into both of the new parallel OCaml implementations to get the best
possible performance out of OCaml for the above comparison.
> Anyhow, in real life situations we'd all be using a super-optimized
> hand-coded-in-assembly matrix multiplication library (LAPACK?), so
> this is all very academic.
If you ignore the impedance mismatch between the data structures, the
performance overhead of invoking external functions and all applications that
require different functionality that has not already been written, optimized
and packaged by someone else, yes.
The fact is, this is hugely important to the vast majority of the software
industry and companies are investing massive amounts of time and effort into
parallelizing their software. Developers are flocking to .NET because it
makes parallelism easy and OCaml has the potential to provide these benefits
if the parallel GC project flies.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-12 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-09 0:39 Why OCaml sucks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 1:11 ` [Caml-list] " Matthew William Cox
2008-05-09 5:10 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 4:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Arthur Chan
2008-05-09 5:09 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 11:12 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 11:58 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2008-05-09 12:10 ` Concurrency [was Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks] Robert Fischer
2008-05-09 12:41 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 12:49 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 18:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:40 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 20:55 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 10:56 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 21:00 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 21:13 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:26 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 23:01 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 7:52 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-10 8:24 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 8:51 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-13 3:47 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:25 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 22:57 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-10 19:59 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:39 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-11 3:58 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-11 9:41 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-12 13:22 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-12 18:07 ` Jon Harrop [this message]
2008-05-12 20:05 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-13 0:42 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13 1:19 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 2:03 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13 3:13 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:33 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 21:22 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 13:00 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 17:46 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 18:17 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 1:29 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 14:51 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:19 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:58 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:39 ` Mike Lin
2008-05-12 13:31 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 18:18 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 13:13 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:32 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-09 6:31 ` Tom Primožič
2008-05-09 6:46 ` Elliott Oti
2008-05-09 7:53 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 7:45 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 8:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 9:31 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 7:58 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 10:29 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 13:08 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 15:38 ` Jeff Polakow
2008-05-09 18:09 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:36 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:34 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-14 13:44 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-09 8:29 ` constructive criticism about Ocaml Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 9:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 10:23 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:01 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 22:23 ` David Teller
2008-05-10 8:36 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2008-05-10 9:18 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 11:37 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ralph Douglass
2008-05-09 13:02 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 12:33 ` not all functional languages lack parallelism Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 18:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:26 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-12 12:54 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 14:16 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 13:33 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 13:49 ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 14:01 ` Brian Hurt
2008-05-13 14:13 ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 15:18 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-14 4:40 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 14:25 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-14 4:29 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 13:01 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:18 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 19:41 ` Karl Zilles
2008-05-13 13:17 ` Kuba Ober
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200805121907.12615.jon@ffconsultancy.com \
--to=jon@ffconsultancy.com \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox