[dsharlet]

The makefile asks for -O2 with clang. I find that -O3 almost never helps in clang. (In gcc it does.)

Here's what I see:

   $ clang++ --version
   clang version 18.0.0

   $ time make bin/matrix
   mkdir -p bin
   clang++ -I../../include -I../ -o bin/matrix matrix.cpp  -O2 -march=native -ffast-math -fstrict-aliasing -fno-exceptions -DNDEBUG -DBLAS  -std=c++14 -Wall -lstdc++ -lm -lblas
   1.25user 0.29system 0:02.74elapsed 56%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 126996maxresident)k
   159608inputs+120outputs (961major+25661minor)pagefaults 0swaps

   $ bin/matrix
   ...
   reduce_tiles_z_order time: 3.86099 ms, 117.323 GFLOP/s
   blas time: 0.533486 ms, 849.103 GFLOP/s

   $ OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 bin/matrix
   ...
   reduce_tiles_z_order time: 3.89488 ms, 116.303 GFLOP/s
   blas time: 3.49714 ms, 129.53 GFLOP/s

My inner loop in perf: https://gist.github.com/dsharlet/5f51a632d92869d144fc3d6ed6b... BLAS inner loop in perf (a chunk of it, it is unrolled massively): https://gist.github.com/dsharlet/5b2184a285a798e0f0c6274dc42...

Despite being on a current-ish version of clang, I've been getting similar results from clang for years now.

Anyways, I'm not going to debate any further. It works for me :) If you want to keep writing code the way you have, go for it.

[bjourne]

-O2 did improve performance significantly, but it's still 0.7 s for NumPy and 5.1 seconds for your code on 4096x4096 matrices. Either you're using a slow version of BLAS or you are benchmarking with matrices that are comparatively tiny (384x1536 is nothing).

[dsharlet]

BLAS is getting almost exactly 100% of the theoretical peak performance of my machine (CPU frequncy * 2 fmadd/cycle * 8 lanes * 2 ops/lane), it's not slow. I mean, just look at the profiler output...

You're probably now comparing parallel code to single threaded code.

[bjourne]

No, multi-threaded OpenBLAS improves performance to 0.15s.

[dsharlet]

I dunno man. My claim was that for specific cases with unique properties, it's not hard to beat BLAS, without getting too exotic with your code. BLAS doesn't have routines for multiplies with non-contiguous data, various patterns of sparsity, mixed precision inputs/outputs, etc. The example I gave is for a specific case close-ish to the case I cared about.

You're changing it to a very different case, presumably one that you cared about, although 4096x4096 is oddly square and a very clean power of 2... I said right at the beginning of this long digression that what is hard about reproducing BLAS is its generality.

[bjourne]

When I run your benchmark with matrices larger than 1024x1024 it errors out in the verification step. Since your implementation isn't even correct I think my original point about OpenBLAS being extremely difficult to replicate still stands.