Re: [firedrake] Firedrake paper results
In figure 2, the RHS overhead looks awfully high. It's an order of magnitude worse than that in figure 5. Is this correct? David On 11 October 2014 11:27, Rathgeber, Florian < florian.rathgeber@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
I'd still be interested in feedback on this!
On 04/10/14 09:12, Florian Rathgeber wrote:
Dear all,
I finished a first draft of the results section for the Firedrake paper. Any feedback gratefully received!
If you don't have access to the repository you can get a PDF from
https://wwwhomes.doc.ic.ac.uk/~fr710/paper.pdf
Cheers, Florian
-- Dr David Ham Departments of Mathematics and Computing Imperial College London http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/david.ham
On 12/10/14 14:13, David Ham wrote:
In figure 2, the RHS overhead looks awfully high. It's an order of magnitude worse than that in figure 5. Is this correct?
Yes, because in the Poisson case this include the overhead of calling FFC since it is a steady state problem, whereas in Fig. 5 we're not measuring FFC overhead since the compiled form is cached and the FFC cost is amortised over many time steps. Florian
David
On 11 October 2014 11:27, Rathgeber, Florian <florian.rathgeber@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:florian.rathgeber@imperial.ac.uk>> wrote:
I'd still be interested in feedback on this!
On 04/10/14 09:12, Florian Rathgeber wrote: > Dear all, > > I finished a first draft of the results section for the Firedrake paper. > Any feedback gratefully received! > > If you don't have access to the repository you can get a PDF from > > https://wwwhomes.doc.ic.ac.uk/~fr710/paper.pdf > > Cheers, > Florian
participants (2)
-
David Ham
-
Florian Rathgeber