Re: ATLAS/flame

[R Clint Whaley <rwhaley@cs.utk.edu>]

Robert,

>I see no significant change in the difference between ATLAS and ITXGEMM when
>linking with this new version.  Notice that we consider "peak" to be much less
>important than how the routines perform for all matrix sizes.

Hmm, 72 to 78 percent should be significant, particularly for the very large
LU numbers you do (unless you feel the gap between 72 and 80 that you
presently have between ITX and ATLAS is insignificant :).

>I will do an exhaustive run tonight.  Do you prefer m,n,k=40:40:520 or
>m,n,k=32:32:512
>or what increments favor this version of ATLAS?

I think you need to rerun all the ATLAS timings in order to replace the
incorrect timings on your webpage.  You installed a binary plainly labeled
as for 512K caches on a machine you indicate has 256K.  This error would not
have occured if you installed from source, as I asked when you first contacted
ATLAS for help. I have given you a prebuilt binary since you were unwilling
to compile from source to fix your error.  I think leaving knowingly
inaccurate timings would be dishonest on your part. 

Cheers,
Clint