[phobos] std.parallelism: Request for review/comment

[Steve Schveighoffer]

Just a comment on 64-bit support, you could say that about any module in phobos 
:)

My recommendation is to just include it when you feel it's good enough, and 
we'll deal with 64-bit when we get there.  Or are there specific 64-bit problems 
that you envision that will affect the design?

BTW, I haven't looked at the module, but it seems like a nifty idea.

-Steve


>
>From: David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com>
>To: Discuss the phobos library for D <phobos at puremagic.com>
>Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 9:42:59 AM
>Subject: Re: [phobos] std.parallelism: Request for review/comment
>
>I really want good reviews from Sean (threading guru) and Andrei (general design 
>guru) before this gets into Phobos.  Otherwise I feel like scientific computing 
>people (like us) might be the only people that find this module to be any good.  
>Also, no matter what, I'm probably going to wait until after the next release to 
>check it in, because I want to test it thoroughly on 64, and I can't do that w/o 
>a 64 compiler.
>
>
>On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad <lars at kyllingen.net> 
>wrote:
>
>I ran my calculation on an 8-core at work, by the way, and it was very enjoyable 
>to see a manyfold speed-up just by changing a few lines of code.
>>
>>We should definitely get this into Phobos.
>>
>>-Lars
>>
>>----- Reply message -----
>>From: "David Simcha" <dsimcha at gmail.com>
>>Date: Tue, Aug 31, 2010 14:13
>>Subject: [phobos] std.parallelism:  Request for review/comment
>>To: "Discuss the phobos library for D" <phobos at puremagic.com>
>>
>>
>> On 8/31/2010 6:22 AM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad wrote:
>>> Point (3) is pretty cool.  I just used your module for my current
>>> project at work, and the ability to get the index made the code a lot
>>> nicer.
>>>
>>> Another question:  Why have you chosen the default number of work units
>>> to be just two units per thread?  In my experience, it's not uncommon
>>> that calculations are harder on some parts of the range than others, and
>>> then there is a risk of some cores running out of work to do.  I'd think
>>> that having more work units, 3-4 per thread, say, would allow for better
>>> distribution of work between cores.
>>>
>>> -Lars
>>
>>Good point.  I should probably change this, as the more I think about it 
>>the more I realize that I never use the default for the reason you 
>>mention.  It seemed like a good idea in iteration 1, and then I just 
>>never reconsidered.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>phobos mailing list
>>phobos at puremagic.com
>>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>phobos mailing list
>>phobos at puremagic.com
>>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>>
>


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20100831/9b502f9c/attachment-0001.html>