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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
WIP: python3Packages.scipy: allow overriding BLAS #230131
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
WIP: python3Packages.scipy: allow overriding BLAS #230131
Changes from 2 commits
14e9a3a
6af7b92
0f3bc1c
5734bfb
28355c2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
no asserts, because they can block overriding.
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.
The assert here is to ensure that when one attempts an override they override both
scipy
andnumpy
. IIRC, a similar assert is used forcudaPackages
in several places, so if this change is rejected, we probably should update these as wellPreviously the synchronization was achieved by putting
numpy.blas
inbuildInputs
. The reason I removednumpy.blas
was becausenumpy.blas
isblas.provider
rather thanblas
. But as mentioned earlier, I'm not yet sure how to motivate the choice betweenblas
andblas.provider
. I'll have to inspect the history of this derivation, I guess...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.
The issue is explained in this older thread #36229.
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.
I didn't use
blas.provider
when I implemented multipleblas
overrides inoctave
, because there things are a little bit more complicated - theoctave
expression has to coordinate between many dependencies that depend and should use the sameblas
andlapack
. In this case, it's much simpler to my understanding, and I don't understand what's wrong with usingnumpy.blas
which points toblas.provider
. In the current state of things you can just:Which seems very nice to me.
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 find this rather obscure: blas is scipy's direct dependency, but we cannot just override it, we have to override numpy instead. The actual "reason" I'm making
blas
an explicit argument, however, is that fromnumpy.blas
(evaluates intomkl
in case ofblas = prev.blas.override { blasProvider = final.mkl; }
) we cannot infer the correct pkg-config target name. With the blas-switching derivation the pkg-config target is fixed atcblas
, as far as I can tell.The reason I put the
assert
is because previously it wasn't possible to have un-synchronizednumpy.blas
andscipy.blas
, but with the new interface it is and even likely to happen by accident (e.g. if one had a local override like yourscipy-myblas
, then it could still evaluate, but scipy its propagated numpy would be silently using different BLAS implementations)I see the convenience argument, but global overlays are same cost in LOC (assuming there's a binary cache), are safer, and this PR doesn't break them.
I also haven't looked into why
numpy
exposesblas.provider
instead of justblas
.Further thoughts?
@FRidh I'll switch to
meta.broken
, and later open a PR to migrate cuda packages as wellThere 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.
Exactly!
And don't forget the
self = pythonWithMyBlas;
sowithPackages
functions.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.
Only I think
blas
andlapack
come from the outer package set (nixpkgs#blas
, notnixpkgs#python3Packages.blas
). But the idea is the same, only that it's even coarser granularity: you overlay the entire nixpkgs to achieve mutual compatibility. We can also addmeta.broken = blas != numpy.blas
. I still don't see any reason we exposeblas.provider
instead ofblas
innumpy.passthru
, so I think we shouldn't be doing thatRE:
python3.override
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.
CallPackage should pick it up if I am correct
I don't know anymore why that was. Maybe that should be changed throughout?
That would have an effect on the entire nixpkgs then (all interpreters + every package using any of these).
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.
Ah, so we could just add the
blas
attribute to the python package set via an overlay, is that what you're saying? And in either case it would be picked up bycallPackage
.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.
Exactly!
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.
This uses the
.pc
file generated bybuild-support/alternatives/blas/
. I am not sure if that's what we want to use, and I'm entirely not sure whenbuild-support/alternatives/blas
should be used.For comparison:
Note that MKL does not seem to distribute a
mkl.pc
file, instead it ships: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.
I'm concerned whether using these
cblas.pc
andlapacke.pc
allows for static linkageThere 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.
AFAIU,
blas.override { blasProvider = mkl; }
is somehow a way to exposemkl_rt
the "single dynamic library", andlibcblas.so
in that derivation is a copy oflibblas.so
frommkl
? What I do not understand if scipy is expected to link any of MKL statically, and whether theblas
switching mechanism supports static linkage.@matthewbauer I see you worked both on
blas
switching, and on blas/lapack innumpy
. Any hints?