Is clock-throttling of interest here?
It would be really annoying if the code that chooses a macro implementation
has to guess how much power will be consumed by each core. Or has to
dynamically pick a macro implementation based on the current frequencies of
all the cores.
https://lemire.me/blog
Original Message-
> From: NumPy-Discussion intel@python.org> On Behalf Of Matti Picus
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:19 PM
> To: numpy-discussion@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP 38 - Universal SIMD intrinsics
>
> On 11/2/20 8:02 pm, Devulapal
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:36:10 +
"Devulapalli, Raghuveer" wrote:
> j. _mm512_sqrt_ps/pd (I could be wrong on this one, but from the little
> google search I did, it seems like power ISA doesn’t have a vectorized sqrt
> instruction)
Hi,
starting at Power7 (we are at Power9), the sqrt is avai
rsal intrinsic and
then benchmark.
Raghuveer
-Original Message-
From: NumPy-Discussion
On Behalf
Of Matti Picus
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:19 PM
To: numpy-discussion@python.org
Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP 38 - Universal SIMD intrinsics
On 11/2/20 8:02 pm, Devulapal
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:19 AM Matti Picus wrote:
> On 11/2/20 8:02 pm, Devulapalli, Raghuveer wrote:
> >
> > On top of that the performance implications aren’t clear. Software
> > implementations of hardware instructions might perform worse and might
> > not even produce the same result.
> >
>
On 11/2/20 8:02 pm, Devulapalli, Raghuveer wrote:
On top of that the performance implications aren’t clear. Software
implementations of hardware instructions might perform worse and might
not even produce the same result.
The proposal for universal intrinsics does not enable replacing an
t easy to figure
out) making that platform fall back to the generic non-SIMD version of the
ufunc.
Cheers,
Ralf
>
>
> *From:* NumPy-Discussion intel@python.org> *On Behalf Of *Ralf Gommers
> *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2020 9:17 PM
> *To:* Discussion of Numerical Python
&g
ren’t clear. Software implementations of hardware instructions
might perform worse and might not even produce the same result.
From: NumPy-Discussion
On Behalf
Of Ralf Gommers
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 9:17 PM
To: Discussion of Numerical Python
Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP 38 - Univ
On 11/2/20 7:16 am, Ralf Gommers wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:00 PM Hameer Abbasi
mailto:einstein.edi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
—snip—
> 1) Once NumPy adds the framework and initial set of Universal Intrinsic,
if
contributors want to leverage a new architecture specific SIMD
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:00 PM Hameer Abbasi
wrote:
> —snip—
>
> > 1) Once NumPy adds the framework and initial set of Universal Intrinsic,
> if contributors want to leverage a new architecture specific SIMD
> instruction, will they be expected to add software implementation of this
> instruction
—snip—
> 1) Once NumPy adds the framework and initial set of Universal Intrinsic, if
> contributors want to leverage a new architecture specific SIMD instruction,
> will they be expected to add software implementation of this instruction for
> all other architectures too?
In my opinion, if the
worsens performance on another?
Thanks,
Raghuveer
-Original Message-
From: NumPy-Discussion
On Behalf
Of Daniele Nicolodi
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:01 AM
To: numpy-discussion@python.org
Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP 38 - Universal SIMD intrinsics
On 04-02-2020 08:08
On 04-02-2020 08:08, Matti Picus wrote:
> Together with Sayed Adel (cc) and Ralf, I am pleased to put the draft
> version of NEP 38 [0] up for discussion. As per NEP 0, this is the next
> step in the community accepting the approach layed out in the NEP. The
> NEP PR [1] has already garnered a fair
Together with Sayed Adel (cc) and Ralf, I am pleased to put the draft
version of NEP 38 [0] up for discussion. As per NEP 0, this is the next
step in the community accepting the approach layed out in the NEP. The
NEP PR [1] has already garnered a fair amount of discussion about the
viability of
14 matches
Mail list logo
