-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 912
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add bytes_per_second
to transpose benchmark
#14170
Merged
rapids-bot
merged 15 commits into
rapidsai:branch-23.12
from
Blonck:processed_bytes_transpose_bench
Oct 10, 2023
Merged
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
66f43e4
Add `bytes_per_second` to transpose benchmark
Blonck d2676b5
Run clang-format on transpose benchmark
Blonck f594a81
Refactor column type in transpose benchmark
Blonck dcd9ef1
Merge branch 'branch-23.12' into processed_bytes_transpose_bench
Blonck 60845b7
Fix transpose benchmark type issue
Blonck 05e1afa
Merge branch 'branch-23.12' into processed_bytes_transpose_bench
Blonck e9280cc
Change way column type is handled in transpose bench
Blonck 4187495
Merge branch 'branch-23.12' into processed_bytes_transpose_bench
Blonck c50a5ef
Fix code style in transpose benchmark
Blonck 8083756
Avoid potential integer overflow in transpose benchmark.
Blonck e6d9f24
Update cpp/benchmarks/transpose/transpose.cpp
Blonck 82cbcf9
Fix code style in transpose benchmark
Blonck ed8aa1e
Merge branch 'branch-23.12' into processed_bytes_transpose_bench
harrism 943b9f3
Merge branch 'branch-23.12' into processed_bytes_transpose_bench
Blonck 09f10d8
Merge branch 'branch-23.12' into processed_bytes_transpose_bench
harrism File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
suggestion: This one could also overflow, I think, perhaps:
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you sure about this one? Since the return type of
cudf::bitmask_allocation_size_bytes
isstd::size_t
which is eitherunsigned long
orunsigned long long
so for reasonable input sizes the integer type promotion will avoid the overflow (https://cppinsights.io/s/26f977cb).That said, just having this discussion indicates I should've included an explicit cast upfront to clear up any potential confusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left-to-right associativity means that this is evaluated as$2^{30}$ rows, there's in general no reason why they couldn't be (although the transpose performance will be terrible I grant you).
(2 * ncol) * nrow
, the first multiplication is performed insize_type
(AKA,int32_t
), so that could overflow, no? Although I think these benchmarks are generally run with fewer thanThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not just always put the thing that returns
size_t
(sizeof
orbitmask_allocation_size_bytes
) first in the arithmetic in all of these PRs?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally, I would keep the cast explicit to make visible what is happening, but I don't have a strong stance on it.