Non-ideal default number of BLAS threads on aarch64-apple-darwin

[ctkelley]

lu is slower by a factor of 2 on 1.8.0-rc3/M1 Macs

Results from a 2020 MacBook Pro.

On 1.8.0-rc3

julia> A=rand(8192,8192);

julia> @btime lu!($A);
  4.087 s (2 allocations: 64.05 KiB)

and on 1.7.2

julia> A=rand(8192,8192);

julia> @btime lu!($A);
  1.929 s (2 allocations: 64.05 KiB)

[ctkelley]

Seems that it's better if I set the number of BLAS threads to 4. Wasn't this done automatically before?

julia> A1=rand(8192,8192); A2=copy(A1);

julia> @btime lu!($A1);
  4.101 s (2 allocations: 64.05 KiB)

julia> using LinearAlgebra.BLAS

julia> BLAS.set_num_threads(4)

julia> @btime lu!(A2);
  2.251 s (3 allocations: 64.08 KiB)

[inkydragon]

Confirmed in WSL2.
It looks like the default number of threads for 1.7/1.8 is not the same.

Note: Use seed! to fix the test matrix to be consistent between tests.

using Random
using LinearAlgebra
using BenchmarkTools

Random.seed!(46071)
A = rand(8192, 8192);

BLAS.get_num_threads()

sum(A)
@btime lu!(copy(A));
@benchmark lu!(B)  setup=( B=copy($A) )
sum(A)

B = copy(A);
@btime lu!(B);

• Version 1.7.3 (2022-05-06)

julia> BLAS.get_num_threads()
6

julia> sum(A)
3.3553450714250512e7

julia> @btime lu!(copy(A));
  2.189 s (5 allocations: 512.06 MiB)

julia> @benchmark lu!(B)  setup=( B=copy($A) )
BenchmarkTools.Trial: 3 samples with 1 evaluation.
 Range (min … max):  1.931 s …   2.026 s  ┊ GC (min … max): 0.00% … 0.00%
 Time  (median):     1.948 s              ┊ GC (median):    0.00%
 Time  (mean ± σ):   1.969 s ± 50.677 ms  ┊ GC (mean ± σ):  0.00% ± 0.00%

  █         █                                             █
  █▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁█ ▁
  1.93 s         Histogram: frequency by time        2.03 s <

 Memory estimate: 64.05 KiB, allocs estimate: 2.

julia> sum(A)
3.3553450714250512e7

julia> @btime lu!(B);
  1.897 s (3 allocations: 64.08 KiB)

• Version 1.8.0-rc3 (2022-07-13)

julia> BLAS.get_num_threads()
3

julia> sum(A)
3.3553450714250512e7

julia> @btime lu!(copy(A));
  2.891 s (5 allocations: 512.06 MiB)

julia> @benchmark lu!(B)  setup=( B=copy($A) )
BenchmarkTools.Trial: 2 samples with 1 evaluation.
 Range (min … max):  2.754 s …   2.872 s  ┊ GC (min … max): 0.00% … 0.00%
 Time  (median):     2.813 s              ┊ GC (median):    0.00%
 Time  (mean ± σ):   2.813 s ± 83.977 ms  ┊ GC (mean ± σ):  0.00% ± 0.00%

  █                                                       █
  █▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁█ ▁
  2.75 s         Histogram: frequency by time        2.87 s <

 Memory estimate: 64.05 KiB, allocs estimate: 2.

julia> sum(A)
3.3553450714250512e7

julia> @btime lu!(B);
  2.636 s (3 allocations: 64.08 KiB)

Update:

• Version 1.8.0-rc3 (2022-07-13) + 6 BLAS threads

julia> BLAS.get_num_threads()
3
julia> BLAS.set_num_threads(6)
julia> BLAS.get_num_threads()
6

julia> sum(A)
3.3553450714250512e7

julia> @btime lu!(copy(A));
  2.037 s (5 allocations: 512.06 MiB)

julia> @benchmark lu!(B)  setup=( B=copy($A) )
BenchmarkTools.Trial: 3 samples with 1 evaluation.
 Range (min … max):  1.898 s …    2.348 s  ┊ GC (min … max): 0.00% … 0.00%
 Time  (median):     1.995 s               ┊ GC (median):    0.00%
 Time  (mean ± σ):   2.080 s ± 237.145 ms  ┊ GC (mean ± σ):  0.00% ± 0.00%

  █           █                                            █
  █▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁█ ▁
  1.9 s          Histogram: frequency by time         2.35 s <

 Memory estimate: 64.05 KiB, allocs estimate: 2.

julia> sum(A)
3.3553450714250512e7

julia> B = copy(A);

julia> @btime lu!(B);
  1.706 s (3 allocations: 64.08 KiB)

[ViralBShah]

The default number of openblas threads is a challenge. We may need to have a special case for M1 with the performance and efficiency cores stuff.

This was the latest update to that logic: JuliaLang/julia#45412

[giordano]

On M1 I get:

% julia-17 -e 'using LinearAlgebra; @info "" VERSION BLAS.get_num_threads()'
┌ Info:
│   VERSION = v"1.7.0"
└   BLAS.get_num_threads() = 8
% julia -e 'using LinearAlgebra; @info "" VERSION BLAS.get_num_threads()'
┌ Info:
│   VERSION = v"1.9.0-DEV.983"
└   BLAS.get_num_threads() = 2

The "right" number of threads should be 4, not 8, nor 2.

[giordano]

Also, I can confirm I get identical performance between Julia v1.7 and master, when using same number of BLAS threads, so the only issue here is the default number of threads, I renamed the issue accordingly.

[ctkelley]

That seems to be it. I ran the experiment on 1.8.0-rc3

Random.seed!(46071)
A = rand(8192, 8192);
A0=copy(A)
for ith=2:2:8
    A .= A0
    BLAS.set_num_threads(ith)
    lutime = @belapsed lu!($A);
    println("threads = $ith; time = $lutime")
end

and got

threads = 2; time = 4.09720e+00
threads = 4; time = 2.39923e+00
threads = 6; time = 2.26150e+00
threads = 8; time = 2.09293e+00

and the same results on 1.7.2.

Is 4 the right number? Is there a guarantee that if we ask for 4 threads they run on the performance cores?

[ViralBShah]

@chriselrod may know.

[chriselrod]

1 thread per performance core is optimal, which is what Julia detects: JuliaLang/julia#44072

Note that each performance core has only a single thread, so we're not getting twice the cores from Sys.CPU_THREADS like we are on most x86 systems.

[ViralBShah]

If you pick 4 cores, are you guaranteed to get scheduled on the performance cores?