Bug 1619050
| Summary: | ocaml-gsl: use openblas instead of atlas | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> |
| Component: | ocaml-gsl | Assignee: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | rjones |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-08-20 11:11:46 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1506952 | ||
Back in 2015 we switched from CBLAS to Atlas because the performance was supposed to be better: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/thread.html#208146 Has this advice changed? Is CBLAS the same as OpenBLAS? (If only there was just one numeric library ...) Also is GSL different from BLAS? Uses BLAS? (Imagine I know nothing about this topic at all when answering) Proposed fix: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29195993 This is now linking using: -lgsl -lopenblas -lm (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #1) > Back in 2015 we switched from CBLAS to Atlas because the performance > was supposed to be better: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/thread. > html#208146 > > Has this advice changed? No, ATLAS was and still is faster than CBLAS (the original one from netlib). > Is CBLAS the same as OpenBLAS? No. OpenBLAS is a competing optimized implementation based on GotoBLAS. It's actively maintained and has advantages over ATLAS in terms of runtime code path selection and performance which are attractive to Fedora. > (If only there was just one numeric library ...) There's also binary-only MKL (from Intel) and something similar from AMD. ;) (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #2) > Also is GSL different from BLAS? Yes. > Uses BLAS? Yes, but the implementation must be selected at link time: http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Linking-with-an-alternative-BLAS-library.html Also see bug #1007058. > (Imagine I know nothing about this topic at all when answering) Got it. :) (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #3) > Proposed fix: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29195993 > > This is now linking using: > > -lgsl -lopenblas -lm Thank you. OK, thanks for the comprehensive answer, let's assume this is fixed unless someone finds otherwise. |
Description of problem: Please BuildRequire: openblas instead of atlas where available (x86_64 %{ix86} armv7hl %{power64} aarch64 s390x, see %{openblas_arches} macro defined in openblas-srpm-macros package). Currently, it's available on all primary Fedora arches, so you can technically skip using the macro. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ocaml-gsl-1.19.1-15.fc29 Additional information: OpenBLAS selects best code path for the target architecture at runtime unlike ATLAS. A lot of benchmarks around the net suggest openblas is faster than ATLAS in most workloads: https://github.com/tmolteno/necpp/issues/18 http://blog.nguyenvq.com/blog/2014/11/10/optimized-r-and-python-standard-blas-vs-atlas-vs-openblas-vs-mkl/ https://freddie.witherden.org/pages/blas-gemm-bench/ http://nghiaho.com/?p=1726 Many Fedora packages have switched to openblas already (e.g. scalapack and all dependent ones and numpy).