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

[David Simcha]

Oh, that and I'm looking forward to the next release enough that I don't
want to hold it up.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:08 AM, David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/f268b688/attachment.html>