Re: RFC: threading-aware virtual BLAS/LAPACK
Mo Zhou <email@example.com> writes:
> Please comment:
> 1. Do we have a better solution where we can retain high performance and
> avoid threading trouble at the same time?
> 2. If we don't have a better solution, is my proposal acceptable?
> 3. In which way can my proposal be improved?
Your proposal seems sane to be, and a real service to the users!
However, I am a little bit worried about the maintenance burden you are
setting up for the future; may it be promising too much to the users to
provide every single combination? Since this is BLAS, one could imagine
adding yet another couple of versions for each of the options, targeting
ever fancier vector instructions, etc. – at what point are special needs
best left to the user to cover?
I wish I had more constructive criticism. Thanks for the work!
An aside: do autopkgtest or other CIs currently test packages with
varied combinations of BLAS/LAPACK providers?