clifford
clifford copied to clipboard
Remove workarounds now that sparse-0.9.1 has numba support
xref https://github.com/pydata/sparse/pull/307
This looks exciting, really nice @eric-wieser ! Is there any impact on performance?
Who knows? We don't really have any canonical benchmarks.
Mac CI is failing because conda
is pinned on a super old version, but I'm tempted to deal with that later.
Hmm, seems ~1.4x slower to startup:
With this patch
In [1]: import clifford
In [2]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5)
813 ms ± 20.9 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
In [3]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5)
872 ms ± 47.9 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
Without this patch:
In [1]: import clifford
In [2]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5)
596 ms ± 9.81 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
In [3]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5)
658 ms ± 40.8 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
@stuartarchibald, can you think of why this would be the case?
Multiplication hasn't really changed: After:
In [7]: %timeit e1 * e234
7.69 µs ± 175 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
In [8]: %timeit e1 * e234
7.48 µs ± 190 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
before:
In [9]: %timeit e1 * e234
8.61 µs ± 1.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
In [10]: %timeit e1 * e234
7.91 µs ± 322 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
Hmm, seems ~1.4x slower to startup:
With this patch
In [1]: import clifford In [2]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5) 813 ms ± 20.9 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) In [3]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5) 872 ms ± 47.9 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
Without this patch:
In [1]: import clifford In [2]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5) 596 ms ± 9.81 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) In [3]: %timeit clifford.Cl(5) 658 ms ± 40.8 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
@stuartarchibald, can you think of why this would be the case?
@eric-wieser perhaps this: https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/4927 ?
The before and after measurements are done with the same dependency versions, and are after numba and sparse have already been imported - it seems that the compilation time is where the cost comes from.
The before and after measurements are done with the same dependency versions, and are after numba and sparse have already been imported - it seems that the compilation time is where the cost comes from.
Ah, could well be, there's some degree of caching available cache=True
in the jit decorators, there's also compilation pass timing metadata available if needs be.
Before this patch:
>>> next(iter(Cl(5)[0].gmt_func.overloads.values())).metadata
{'parfor_diagnostics': ParforDiagnostics,
'pipeline_times': {'nopython': OrderedDict([('0_translate_bytecode',
pass_timings(init=5.699999746866524e-06, run=0.009091500003705733, finalize=6.000002031214535e-06)),
('1_fixup_args',
pass_timings(init=3.7999998312443495e-06, run=7.299997378140688e-06, finalize=3.000008291564882e-06)),
('2_ir_processing',
pass_timings(init=2.4000037228688598e-06, run=0.003318200004287064, finalize=4.799992893822491e-06)),
('3_with_lifting',
pass_timings(init=4.1000021155923605e-06, run=0.004175599999143742, finalize=5.699999746866524e-06)),
('4_rewrite_semantic_constants',
pass_timings(init=4.699992132373154e-06, run=0.0002558999985922128, finalize=3.1999952625483274e-06)),
('5_dead_branch_prune',
pass_timings(init=2.4999899324029684e-06, run=0.0006873999955132604, finalize=4.8000074457377195e-06)),
('6_generic_rewrites',
pass_timings(init=2.4000037228688598e-06, run=0.01509299999452196, finalize=3.000008291564882e-06)),
('7_inline_closure_likes',
pass_timings(init=1.7999991541728377e-06, run=0.0041402999922866, finalize=5.299996701069176e-06)),
('8_make_function_op_code_to_jit_function',
pass_timings(init=5.1000097300857306e-06, run=5.8599995099939406e-05, finalize=2.1000014385208488e-06)),
('9_inline_inlinables',
pass_timings(init=2.0000006770715117e-06, run=9.730001329444349e-05, finalize=1.5999976312741637e-06)),
('10_dead_branch_prune',
pass_timings(init=1.3999961083754897e-06, run=0.0006452999950852245, finalize=2.5000044843181968e-06)),
('11_find_literally',
pass_timings(init=2.2000021999701858e-06, run=9.169999975711107e-05, finalize=1.600012183189392e-06)),
('12_literal_unroll',
pass_timings(init=1.5999976312741637e-06, run=5.629999213851988e-05, finalize=2.4000037228688598e-06)),
('13_nopython_type_inference',
pass_timings(init=2.2000021999701858e-06, run=0.027430600006482564, finalize=4.799992893822491e-06)),
('14_annotate_types',
pass_timings(init=2.4999899324029684e-06, run=2.750000567175448e-05, finalize=2.5000044843181968e-06)),
('15_inline_overloads',
pass_timings(init=2.0000006770715117e-06, run=0.00013780000153928995, finalize=1.6999983927235007e-06)),
('16_nopython_rewrites',
pass_timings(init=2.6000052457675338e-06, run=0.003319099996588193, finalize=4.2000028770416975e-06)),
('17_ir_legalization',
pass_timings(init=2.3000029614195228e-06, run=0.002335299999685958, finalize=3.1999952625483274e-06)),
('18_nopython_backend',
pass_timings(init=2.0000006770715117e-06, run=0.22158709999348503, finalize=4.1000021155923605e-06)),
('19_dump_parfor_diagnostics',
pass_timings(init=2.2000021999701858e-06, run=1.68999977177009e-05, finalize=6.100002792663872e-06))])}}
After this patch:
{'parfor_diagnostics': ParforDiagnostics,
'pipeline_times': {'nopython': OrderedDict([('0_translate_bytecode',
pass_timings(init=3.599999985226532e-06, run=0.005174699999997756, finalize=3.7000000077114237e-06)),
('1_fixup_args',
pass_timings(init=1.6999999843392288e-06, run=3.599999985226532e-06, finalize=9.999999974752427e-07)),
('2_ir_processing',
pass_timings(init=1.1999999856016075e-06, run=0.0019801000000256863, finalize=2.2000000114985596e-06)),
('3_with_lifting',
pass_timings(init=1.8000000068241206e-06, run=0.0027746000000092863, finalize=3.2000000089738023e-06)),
('4_rewrite_semantic_constants',
pass_timings(init=1.499999996212864e-06, run=0.0001085999999759224, finalize=1.499999996212864e-06)),
('5_dead_branch_prune',
pass_timings(init=1.4000000021496817e-06, run=0.0003125000000068212, finalize=2.099999989013668e-06)),
('6_generic_rewrites',
pass_timings(init=1.7000000127609383e-06, run=0.020567699999986644, finalize=2.3999999996249244e-06)),
('7_inline_closure_likes',
pass_timings(init=1.7000000127609383e-06, run=0.003134299999999257, finalize=3.8999999958377884e-06)),
('8_make_function_op_code_to_jit_function',
pass_timings(init=1.499999996212864e-06, run=4.7899999998435305e-05, finalize=1.099999991538425e-06)),
('9_inline_inlinables',
pass_timings(init=1.4000000021496817e-06, run=8.489999999028441e-05, finalize=1.499999996212864e-06)),
('10_dead_branch_prune',
pass_timings(init=1.1999999856016075e-06, run=0.0003067000000100961, finalize=1.5999999902760464e-06)),
('11_find_literally',
pass_timings(init=1.3000000080864993e-06, run=6.790000000478358e-05, finalize=1.099999991538425e-06)),
('12_literal_unroll',
pass_timings(init=1.099999991538425e-06, run=4.330000001573353e-05, finalize=1.3000000080864993e-06)),
('13_nopython_type_inference',
pass_timings(init=1.499999996212864e-06, run=0.026779699999991635, finalize=3.399999997100167e-06)),
('14_annotate_types',
pass_timings(init=1.9999999949504854e-06, run=2.7200000005223046e-05, finalize=1.499999996212864e-06)),
('15_inline_overloads',
pass_timings(init=1.4000000021496817e-06, run=0.0002345999999988635, finalize=1.5999999902760464e-06)),
('16_nopython_rewrites',
pass_timings(init=1.3000000080864993e-06, run=0.0052894000000094366, finalize=4.5999999827017746e-06)),
('17_ir_legalization',
pass_timings(init=3.10000001491062e-06, run=0.004680199999995693, finalize=4.500000017060302e-06)),
('18_nopython_backend',
pass_timings(init=2.8000000042993634e-06, run=0.3401664000000153, finalize=3.399999997100167e-06)),
('19_dump_parfor_diagnostics',
pass_timings(init=1.5999999902760464e-06, run=8.699999995087637e-06, finalize=1.1999999856016075e-06))])}}
@eric-wieser So it actually comes out faster?
No - note the 18_nopython_backend
section, which is 0.1s longer. This is just for one of our compiled operator functions, and we have maybe around 5 of them? That was something @stuartarchibald asked for, so i figured I'd post it here.