[Developers] inv problems.

[dseiple84 at gmail.com]

I was mostly saying that if you group the output by source file that there  
is a higher percentage of calls to functions in ludcmp.hpp than in say  
ludcmp.cpp or ludcmp_inv.cpp.

As far as the memory leak, that is a possibility. Using valgrinds memcheck  
tool could help locate any memory leaks.

Derek

On , John Sibert <sibert at hawaii.edu> wrote:
> I'm not sure how to interpret the display with respect to the number of  
> calls to

> cltudecomp_for_adjoint::ludecomp_pivot_for_adjoint_1()

> (if that is what you are talking about), but I note that number of calls  
> to new exceeds the calls to delete by 14 calls. Is there a memory leak?

> John



> On 05/21/2011 06:17 AM, Derek Seiple wrote:


> I looked through the file Dave gave me with the inv code in it. I

> didn't look very different from what is in version 10. I swapped it

> out any way to see if it made any difference in the 'vol' example, but

> it ran at the same speed. The profile I have of the 'vol' example

> (attached: open with kcachegrind) suggests that a lot of time is being

> spent in the headers for the lu-decomposition. Specifically the

> decomp_for_adjoint.



> Derek



> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Derek Seipledseiple84 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Hi All,

> Yes, I have made some improvements, but it is not yet back to the

> speed that 9.1 had. I am going to make one more change to the code and

> then see where we are. Once I've made the change and tested it I'll

> report back.



> Derek



> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:13 PM, John Sibertsibert at hawaii.edu> wrote:


> I seem to recall a recent message from Derek implying that he had fixed  
> the

> speed issue.

> John



> On 05/19/2011 08:02 AM, Arni Magnusson wrote:


> Hi Dave,



> I notice that I'm the only recipient of this important question. I

> appreciate your faith in me, but efficient linear algebra with AD objects  
> is

> really outside my area of expertise.



> I haven't looked at the inverse or solve code (old, new, or proposed), but

> posted the GCC profile diagnostics to help the development team to improve

> the performance of the 'vol' example, which became 3 times slower between

> 9.1 and 10.0. The profile diagnostics point at some culprit functions, and

> Derek Seiple told me (25 Apr email) that he is currently following those

> leads.



> This is definitely a high-priority issue. Given the nature of the problem

> (we have 9.1 code that works fast) and the upcoming developer workshop,  
> I'm

> optimistic it will be solved in version 10.2 or 11.0.



> Cheers,



> Arni







> On Thu, 19 May 2011, dave fournier wrote:




> Hi,



> I'ma bit woried about these problmes with inv and maybe solve taking so

> long.



> It kind of breaks the entire software. That is what I alway expected to

> happen eventually. The idea is that it is supposed to be fast. I produced  
> a

> sketch of the code proper working code but it seems to have been screwed  
> up.

> Any thoughts?



> Dave




> _______________________________________________

> Developers mailing list

> Developers at admb-project.org

> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers




> --

> John Sibert

> Emeritus Researcher, SOEST

> University of Hawaii at Manoa



> Visit the ADMB project http://admb-project.org/








> --

> John Sibert

> Emeritus Researcher, SOEST

> University of Hawaii at Manoa



> Visit the ADMB project http://admb-project.org/




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.admb-project.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20110522/687f40a6/attachment.html>