gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on some

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
3 participants
  • Dave Love
  • Leo Famulari
  • Ludovic Courtès
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Dave Love
Severity
normal
D
D
Dave Love wrote on 22 Dec 2017 14:13
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
87r2rm29dy.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk
This addresses a potential performance problem, fixed in the post-0.2.20
source. It's intended for application to a package definition updated
to 0.2.20, which Ludo said is in the pipeline. Apologies that I don't
seem to have converged on an acceptable style for changes.
Attachment: 0001-gnu-maths-Fix-cache-size-detected-by-openblas-on-som.patch
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 8 Jan 2018 10:43
(name . Dave Love)(address . fx@gnu.org)(address . 29810@debbugs.gnu.org)
87zi5oit2m.fsf@gnu.org
Hi Dave,

Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (17 lines)
> This addresses a potential performance problem, fixed in the post-0.2.20
> source. It's intended for application to a package definition updated
> to 0.2.20, which Ludo said is in the pipeline. Apologies that I don't
> seem to have converged on an acceptable style for changes.
>
>>From 23ad3a438ef7bcd34e2354f6cbdede634f0188d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:48:29 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on some
> x86_64.
>
> * gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Add-dummy-implementation-of-cpuid_count-for-the-CPUI.patch,
> gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Use-cpuid-4-with-subleafs-to-query-L1-cache-size-on-.patch:
> New files.
> * gnu/packages/maths.scm (openblas)[source]: Use them.
> * gnu/local.mk: Register them.

Thanks for the patch. Given the number of dependents, we would not push
it in master (info "(guix) Submitting Patches"). At the same time,
since 0.2.20 is in core-updates and well on its way, do you think we
should keep those patches?

Perhaps in core-updates we could keep both 0.2.19 with these patches and
0.2.20 (ISTR you said there were incompatibilities between these two
versions)? Would it make sense?

Thanks,
Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 11 Jan 2018 10:41
control message for bug #29810
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87lgh4ag1o.fsf@gnu.org
tags 29810 moreinfo
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 13 Feb 2019 00:21
Re: [bug#29810] gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on some
20190212232148.GB31772@jasmine.lan
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (9 lines)
> Thanks for the patch. Given the number of dependents, we would not push
> it in master (info "(guix) Submitting Patches"). At the same time,
> since 0.2.20 is in core-updates and well on its way, do you think we
> should keep those patches?
>
> Perhaps in core-updates we could keep both 0.2.19 with these patches and
> 0.2.20 (ISTR you said there were incompatibilities between these two
> versions)? Would it make sense?

Our openblas package is currently at version 0.3.4. Due to lack of
response from the submitter and the "staleness" of these patches I'm
closing the bug ticket. Please re-open the bug if it is still relevant
to you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=V0yB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Closed
?