- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
int a = 169*64; int b = 64*1024; const int c = 5; float* A = new float[169*64]; float* B = new float[64*1024]; float* C = new float[169*1024]; srand(time(NULL)); for (int i=0;i<a;i++) { A = rand()%1000/100.0; if (i%c==0) { A = -4.204e-045; } } for (int j=0;j<b;j++) { B= rand()%10000/1000.0; } while (true) { double t0 = cvGetTickCount(); cblas_sgemm(CblasRowMajor, CblasNoTrans, CblasNoTrans, 169, 1024, 64, 1.0, A, 64, B, 1024, .0, C, 1024); double t1 = cvGetTickCount()-t0; cout<<"consume time:"<<t1/cvGetTickFrequency()/1000.0<<endl; }
excute code above, change constant c, the consume time is different. I guess the running time will be slower when the metrix contains denorimalized value. why?
Link Copied
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Floating-point operations on denormals are slower than on normalized operands because denormal operands and results are usually handled through a software assist mechanism rather than directly in hardware. This software processing causes Intel MKL functions that consume denormals to run slower than with normalized floating-point numbers.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi,
Denormal number calculation will be slow. You may can use Intel C/C++ compiler with /Qftz option flush to zero, and the perf of MKL sgemm would be improved. Or you can modify your source code to process all denormal to a normal number, such as numeric_limits<float>::min().
Best regards,
Fiona
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page