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 CHANGELOG. I think this will be interesting information for David. Bill. On 14 Jan, 17:22, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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 <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > 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 difference > > 3) David's approach is much better on Intel hardware > > > I am suspecting it is number 3, but I'll do a timing on an Opteron to > > confirm this. > > > Bill. > > > On 14 Jan, 16:44, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> 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 files or bzip2 files? > > > > Bill. > > > > On 14 Jan, 16:29, Martin Albrecht <m...@informatik.uni-bremen.de> > > > wrote: > > > > > 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 the old sage.math. > > > > > > The zn_poly changelog shows that David implemented the Schonhage/ > > > > > Nussbaumer FFT in zn_poly shortly after that point. After zn_poly > > > > > 0.7.0 David reported that the same multiplication took zn_poly 4.3 > > > > > billion cycles on sage.math, i.e. 2.39s which is actually slower than > > > > > the current FLINT. > > > > > > There's no indication in the changelog of any changes to the > > > > > multiplication code (though the tuning code was revamped) since that > > > > > time. > > > > > > Can I ask what architecture you got the above timings on Martin. > > > > > That's my Core2Duo 2.33Ghz Macbook Pro. You can try it on sage.math: > > > > > sage: def f(p,n): > > > > ....: P = PolynomialRing(GF(next_prime(p)),'x') > > > > ....: f = P.random_element(n) > > > > ....: g = P.random_element(n) > > > > ....: t0 = cputime() > > > > ....: r0 = f*g > > > > ....: t0 = cputime(t0) > > > > ....: t1 = cputime() > > > > ....: r1 = f._mul_zn_poly(g) > > > > ....: t1 = cputime(t1) > > > > ....: assert(r0 == r1) > > > > ....: return p,n,t0,t1 > > > > ....: > > > > sage: for i in range(21): > > > > ....: f(2**47,2**i) > > > > ....: > > > > > (140737488355328, 1, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 2, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 4, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 8, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 16, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 32, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 64, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 128, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 256, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 512, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 1024, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 2048, 0.0, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 4096, 0.010000000000000009, 0.0) > > > > (140737488355328, 8192, 0.0099999999999997868, 0.010000000000000231) > > > > (140737488355328, 16384, 0.020000000000000018, 0.020000000000000018) > > > > (140737488355328, 32768, 0.049999999999999822, 0.050000000000000266) > > > > (140737488355328, 65536, 0.099999999999999645, 0.099999999999999645) > > > > (140737488355328, 131072, 0.28000000000000114, 0.19999999999999929) > > > > (140737488355328, 262144, 0.63000000000000256, 0.44000000000000128) > > > > (140737488355328, 524288, 1.5300000000000011, 1.0600000000000023) > > > > (140737488355328, 1048576, 3.0999999999999943, 2.1500000000000057) > > > > > use my sage install (/home/malb/sage-3.2.2) for that. > > > > > > It'll be interesting for both David and I if his Schonhage/Nussbaumer > > > > > FFT is > > > > > that much better than the FLINT large integer FFT on certain > > > > > architectures. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Martin > > > > > -- > > > > name: Martin Albrecht > > > > _pgp:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 > > > > _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF > > > > _www:http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb > > > > _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
