Matrix multiplication in 2 different ways (comparing time) - c

Question

I've got an assignment - compare 2 matrix multiplications - in the default way, and multiplication after transposition of second matrix, we should point the difference which method is faster. I've written something like this below, but time and time2 are nearly equal to each other. In one case the first method is faster, I run the multiplication with the same size of matrix, and in another one the second method is faster. Is something done wrong? Should I change something in my code?
clock_t start = clock();
int sum;
for(int i=0; i<size; ++i) {
for(int j=0; j<size; ++j) {
sum = 0;
for(int k=0; k<size; ++k) {
sum = sum + (m1[i][k] * m2[k][j]);
}
score[i][j] = sum;
}
}
clock_t end = clock();
double time = (end-start)/(double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
for(int i=0; i<size; ++i) {
for(int j=0; j<size; ++j) {
int temp = m2[i][j];
m2[i][j] = m2[j][i];
m2[j][i] = temp;
}
}
clock_t start2 = clock();
int sum2;
for(int i=0; i<size; ++i) {
for(int j=0; j<size; ++j) {
sum2 = 0;
for(int k=0; k<size; ++k) {
sum2 = sum2 + (m1[k][i] * m2[k][j]);
}
score[i][j] = sum2;
}
}
clock_t end2 = clock();
double time2 = (end2-start2)/(double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC;

Answer 1

You have multiple severe issues with your code and/or your understanding. Let me try to explain.
Matrix multiplication is bottlenecked by the rate at which the processor can load and store the values to memory. Most current architectures use cache to help with this. Data is moved from memory to cache and from cache to memory in blocks. To maximize the benefit of caching, you want to make sure you will use all the data in that block. To do that, you make sure you access the data sequentially in memory.
In C, multi-dimensional arrays are specified in row-major order. It means that the rightmost index is consecutive in memory; i.e. that a[i][k] and a[i][k+1] are consecutive in memory.
Depending on the architecture, the time it takes for the processor to wait (and do nothing) for the data to be moved from RAM to cache (and vice versa), may or may not be included in the CPU time (that e.g. clock() measures, albeit at a very poor resolution). For this kind of measurement ("microbenchmark"), it is much better to measure and report both CPU and real (or wall clock) time used; especially so if the microbenchmark is run on different machines, to get a better idea of the practical impact of the change.
There will be a lot of variation, so typically, you measure the time taken by a few hundred repeats (each repeat possibly making more than one operation; enough to be easily measured), storing the duration of each, and report their median. Why median, and not minimum, maximum, average? Because there will always be occasional glitches (unreasonable measurement due to an external event, or something), which typically yield a much higher value than normal; this makes the maximum uninteresting, and skews the average (mean) unless removed. The minimum is typically an over-optimistic case, where everything just happened to go perfectly; that rarely occurs in practice, so is only a curiosity, not of practical interest. The median time, on the other hand, gives you a practical measurement: you can expect 50% of all runs of your test case to take no more than the median time measured.
On POSIXy systems (Linux, Mac, BSDs), you should use clock_gettime() to measure the time. The struct timespec format has nanosecond precision (1 second = 1,000,000,000 nanoseconds), but resolution may be smaller (i.e., the clocks change by more than 1 nanosecond, whenever they change). I personally use
#define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200809L
#include <time.h>
static struct timespec cpu_start, wall_start;
double cpu_seconds, wall_seconds;
void timing_start(void)
{
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &wall_start);
clock_gettime(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID, &cpu_start);
}
void timing_stop(void)
{
struct timespec cpu_end, wall_end;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &wall_end);
clock_gettime(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID, &cpu_end);
wall_seconds = (double)(wall_end.tv_sec - wall_start.tv_sec)
+ (double)(wall_end.tv_nsec - wall_start.tv_nsec) / 1000000000.0;
cpu_seconds = (double)(cpu_end.tv_sec - cpu_start.tv_sec)
+ (double)(cpu_end.tv_nsec - cpu_start.tv_nsec) / 1000000000.0;
}
You call timing_start() before the operation, and timing_stop() after the operation; then, cpu_seconds contains the amount of CPU time taken and wall_seconds the real wall clock time taken (both in seconds, use e.g. %.9f to print all meaningful decimals).
The above won't work on Windows, because Microsoft does not want your C code to be portable to other systems. It prefers to develop their own "standard" instead. (Those C11 "safe" _s() I/O function variants are a stupid sham, compared to e.g. POSIX getline(), or the state of wide character support on all systems except Windows.)
Matrix multiplication is
c[r][c] = a[r][0] * b[0][c]
+ a[r][1] * b[1][c]
: :
+ a[r][L] * b[L][c]
where a has L+1 columns, and b has L+1 rows.
In order to make the summation loop use consecutive elements, we need to transpose b. If B[c][r] = b[r][c], then
c[r][c] = a[r][0] * B[c][0]
+ a[r][1] * B[c][1]
: :
+ a[r][L] * B[c][L]
Note that it suffices that a and B are consecutive in memory, but separate (possibly "far" away from each other), for the processor to utilize cache efficiently in such cases.
OP uses a simple loop, similar to the following pseudocode, to transpose b:
For r in rows:
For c in columns:
temporary = b[r][c]
b[r][c] = b[c][r]
b[c][r] = temporary
End For
End For
The problem above is that each element participates in a swap twice. For example, if b has 10 rows and columns, r = 3, c = 5 swaps b[3][5] and b[5][3], but then later, r = 5, c = 3 swaps b[5][3] and b[3][5] again! Essentially, the double loop ends up restoring the matrix to the original order; it does not do a transpose.
Consider the following entries and the actual transpose:
b[0][0] b[0][1] b[0][2] b[0][0] b[1][0] b[2][0]
b[1][0] b[1][1] b[1][2] ⇔ b[0][1] b[1][1] b[2][1]
b[2][0] b[2][1] b[2][2] b[0][2] b[1][2] b[2][2]
The diagonal entries are not swapped. You only need to do the swap in the upper triangular portion (where c > r) or in the lower triangular portion (where r > c), to swap all entries, because each swap swaps one entry from the upper triangular to the lower triangular, and vice versa.
So, to recap:
Is something done wrong?
Yes. Your transpose does nothing. You haven't understood the reason why one would want to transpose the second matrix. Your time measurement relies on a low-precision CPU time, which may not reflect the time taken by moving data between RAM and CPU cache. In the second test case, with m2 "transposed" (except it isn't, because you swap each element pair twice, returning them back to the way they were), your innermost loop is over the leftmost array index, which means it calculates the wrong result. (Moreover, because consecutive iterations of the innermost loop accesses items far from each other in memory, it is anti-optimized: it uses the pattern that is worst in terms of speed.)
All the above may sound harsh, but it isn't intended to be, at all. I do not know you, and I am not trying to evaluate you; I am only pointing out the errors in this particular answer, in your current understanding, and only in the hopes that it helps you, and anyone else encountering this question in similar circumstances, to learn.