OpenBLAS VS julia

The Fortran implementation is just a reference implementation. The goal of reference BLAS [0] is to provide relatively simple and easy to understand implementations which demonstrate the interface and are intended to give correct results to test against. Perhaps an exceptional Fortran compiler which doesn't yet exist could generate code which rivals hand (or automatically) tuned optimized BLAS libraries like OpenBLAS [1], MKL [2], ATLAS [3], and those based on BLIS [4], but in practice this is not observed.

Justine observed that the threading model for LLaMA makes it impractical to integrate one of these optimized BLAS libraries, so she wrote her own hand-tuned implementations following the same principles they use.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Linear_Algebra_Subprogra...

[1] https://github.com/OpenMathLib/OpenBLAS

[2] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/tools/onea...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Alg...

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIS_(software)

Yeah. I'm going to be helping to work on expanding CI for OpenBlas and have been diving into this stuff lately. See the discussion in this closed OpenBlas issue gh-1968 [0] for instance. OpenBlas's Skylake kernels do rely on intrinsics [1] for compilers that support them, but there's a wide range of architectures to support, and when hand-tuned assembly kernels work better, that's what are used. For example, [2].

[0] https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/1968

[1] https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/blob/develop/kernel/x86_6...

[2] https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/blob/23693f09a26ffd8b60eb...

We'll have to wait until part 2 to see what they are actually proposing, but they are trying to solve a real problem. To get a sense of things check out the handwritten assembly kernels in OpenBlas [0]. Note the level of granularity. There are micro-optimized implementations for specific chipsets.

If progress in ML will be aided by a proliferation of hyper-specialized hardware, then there really is a scalability issue around developing optimized matmul routines for each specialized chip. To be able to develop a custom ASIC for a particular application and then easily generate the necessary matrix libraries without having to write hand-crafted assembly for each specific case seems like it could be very powerful.

[0] https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/tree/develop/kernel

libraries mkl_rt not found in ['C:\python\lib', 'C:\', 'C:\python\libs'] ``` Install this and try again. Might need to reboot, never know with Windows https://www.openblas.net/

There isn't any fortran code in the repo there itself but numpy itself can be linked with several numeric libraries. If you look through the wheels for numpy available on pypi, all the latest ones are packaged with OpenBLAS which uses Fortran quite a bit: https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS

Sure - write functions in another language, export C bindings, and then call those functions from Python. An example is NumPy - a lot of its linear algebra functions are implemented in C and Fortran.

Read the official docs yet?

34. Julia - $74,963

I don't believe there is any official documentation on this, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49430 for example added prefetching to the marking phase of a GC which saw speedups on x86, but not on M1.

3. dispatch on all the arguments

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

No. It runs natively on ARM.

julia> versioninfo() Julia Version 1.9.3 Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC) Build Info: Official https://julialang.org/ release

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51086#issuecomment...

So while this "fixes" the issue, it'll introduce a confusing time delay between you freeing the memory and you observing that in `htop`.

But according to https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html you can set `opt.muzzy_decay_ms = 0` to remove the delay.

Still, the musl author has some reservations against making `jemalloc` the default:

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/04/23/2

> It's got serious bloat problems, problems with undermining ASLR, and is optimized pretty much only for being as fast as possible without caring how much memory you use.

With the above-mentioned tunables, this should be mitigated to some extent, but the general "theme" (focusing on e.g. performance vs memory usage) will likely still mean "it's a tradeoff" or "it's no tradeoff, but only if you set tunables to what you need".

I have asked about Julia's reproducibility story on the Guix mailing list in the past, and at the time Simon Tournier didn't think it was promising. I seem to recall Julia itself didnt have a reproducible build. All I know now is that github issue is still not closed.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34753

I don't really know what kind of rebuttal you're looking for, but I will link my HN comments from when this was first posted for some thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861#31398796. As I said, in the linked post, I'm quite skeptical of the business of trying to assess relative buginess of programming in different systems, because that has strong dependencies on what you consider core vs packages and what exactly you're trying to do.

However, bugs in general suck and we've been thinking a fair bit about what additional tooling the language could provide to help people avoid the classes of bugs that Yuri encountered in the post.

The biggest class of problems in the blog post, is that it's pretty clear that `@inbounds` (and I will extend this to `@assume_effects`, even though that wasn't around when Yuri wrote his post) is problematic, because it's too hard to write. My proposal for what to do instead is at https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/50641.

Another common theme is that while Julia is great at composition, it's not clear what's expected to work and what isn't, because the interfaces are informal and not checked. This is a hard design problem, because it's quite close to the reasons why Julia works well. My current thoughts on that are here: https://github.com/Keno/InterfaceSpecs.jl but there's other proposals also.

Doesn't musl have the same issue? https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34726#issuecomment...

I also wonder about OSX's libc. Newer versions seem to have some sort of locking https://github.com/apple-open-source-mirror/Libc/blob/master...

but older versions (from 10.9) don't have any lockign: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Libc/blob/Libc-99...