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

[David Simcha]

Just the fact that it's a systems-ish module and therefore is more
susceptible to changes in CPU architecture than other stuff.  Also, it
depends on core.atomic, which is even more systems-ish and hasn't been
tested on 64 AFAIK.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Steve Schveighoffer
<schveiguy at yahoo.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100831/2d524b93/attachment.html>