[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Handling "parfor" as "for"
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: Handling "parfor" as "for" |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Sep 2011 02:58:31 -0400 |
On 28-Sep-2011, Mark Everitt wrote:
| Thanks for those pointers. I'll take a look at the hacking file and clone the
| repository when I get a patch of free time.
|
| I guessed that thread safety would not be likely. The plan is to spawn
| processes, inspired by parcellfun from octave-forge. This could mean using a
| fair amount of memory and general heaviness. As Matlab suffers
| like this anyway I don't think that this should be considered much of a
| negative.
|
| Let's see what happens...
I checked in the following change
http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/027a2186cd90
Now Octave can accept statements of the form
parfor LHS = EXPR BODY end
parfor ( LHS = EXPR, MAXPROC ) BODY end
These both compile to tree_simple_for_command objects with the new
field "parallel" set to true, and in the case of the second form, with
a new field maxproc pointing to a tree_expression object.
All that is left is to make tree_evaluator::visit_simple_for_command
in pt-eval.cc handle parallel loops.
jwe
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Ben Abbott, 2011/09/25
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/26
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", John W. Eaton, 2011/09/26
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/26
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/27
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/09/27
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/28
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for",
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Mark Everitt, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", John W. Eaton, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Søren Hauberg, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", John W. Eaton, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", John W. Eaton, 2011/09/29
- Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Søren Hauberg, 2011/09/29
Re: Handling "parfor" as "for", Jussi Lehtola, 2011/09/26