search for: paralleliz

Am 19.04.2011 um 16:44 schrieb John Criswell: > On 4/19/11 5:57 AM, Andreas Wilhelm wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I found some code within the pool allocation project to identify parallelizable function calls. >> Unfortunately the functionality isn't part of the current release of poolalloc (in release 14 it was). > > Can you tell me in what file(s) this is implemented? I wasn't aware that the poolalloc project had such an analysis. The automatic parallelization...

Hello, I found some code within the pool allocation project to identify parallelizable function calls. Unfortunately the functionality isn't part of the current release of poolalloc (in release 14 it was). My intention is to estimate the parallelization-potential of sequential applications concerning coarse-grained parallelism. Can you tell me... 1. Why are classes of p...

On 4/19/11 5:57 AM, Andreas Wilhelm wrote: > Hello, > > I found some code within the pool allocation project to identify > parallelizable function calls. > Unfortunately the functionality isn't part of the current release of > poolalloc (in release 14 it was). Can you tell me in what file(s) this is implemented? I wasn't aware that the poolalloc project had such an analysis. > > My intention is to estimat...

On 04/20/2011 08:05 AM, Andreas Wilhelm wrote: > Am 19.04.2011 um 16:44 schrieb John Criswell: > >> On 4/19/11 5:57 AM, Andreas Wilhelm wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I found some code within the pool allocation project to identify >>> parallelizable function calls. >>> Unfortunately the functionality isn't part of the current release of >>> poolalloc (in release 14 it was). >> >> Can you tell me in what file(s) this is implemented? I wasn't aware >> that the poolalloc project had such an analysis...

...l need to focus on single-thread performance rather than multi-threaded one because it is hard to make a slow program faster just by using more threads. - We shouldn't do "too clever" things with threads. Currently, we are using multi-threads only at two places where they are highly parallelizable by nature (namely, copying and applying relocations for each input section, and computing build-id hash). We are using parallel_for_each, and that is very simple and easy to understand. I believe this was a right design choice, and I don't think we want to have something like workqueues/tas...

...[5]],y[0:AI1[5]]) >> #pragma acc kernels >> for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) { >> y[j] = a * x[i] + y[j]; >> ++j; >> } > > I'm not familiar with OpenACC, but doesn't this still have a loop carried dependence on j, and therefore isn't correctly parallelizable as written? That was my original concern as well, but I had forgot that OpenACC pragma are not necessarily saying to the compiler that the loop is parallel: #pragma acc kernels only tells the compiler to “try” to parallelize the loop if it can prove it safe, but: #pragma acc parallel kern...

...rather than >> multi-threaded one because it is hard to make a slow program faster just by >> using more threads. >> >> - We shouldn't do "too clever" things with threads. Currently, we are >> using multi-threads only at two places where they are highly parallelizable >> by nature (namely, copying and applying relocations for each input section, >> and computing build-id hash). We are using parallel_for_each, and that is >> very simple and easy to understand. I believe this was a right design >> choice, and I don't think we want t...

...2011 08:05 AM, Andreas Wilhelm wrote: >> Am 19.04.2011 um 16:44 schrieb John Criswell: >> >>> On 4/19/11 5:57 AM, Andreas Wilhelm wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I found some code within the pool allocation project to identify >>>> parallelizable function calls. >>>> Unfortunately the functionality isn't part of the current release of >>>> poolalloc (in release 14 it was). >>> >>> Can you tell me in what file(s) this is implemented? I wasn't aware >>> that the poolalloc project...

I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough in crypto to fully understand your answer, but I will try. I wonder why moduli are not automatically generated the first time sshd is started though. That would make much more sense than shipping a default moduli file but also asking everyone to replace it with their own. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:50 AM Mark D. Baushke <mdb at juniper.net> wrote: >

Hello Valery, I have some comments regarding your thoughts on LLVM support for distributed computing. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >There should be an engine and layer for making dispatching optimizations in run-time. If one CPU is loaded and code is >"parallelizable" why then not to send some part of >calculation to other CPU? This kind of on-fly decision will >be one day incorporated in something like LLVM. > > I'm not sure to correctly understand what you mean, but I interpret it as LLVM deciding where the code should be execute...

On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 15:57 +1100, Darren Tucker wrote: > That was the original intent (and it's mentioned in RFC4419) however > each moduli file we ship (70-80 instances of 6 sizes) takes about 1 > cpu-month to generate on a lowish-power x86-64 machine. Most of it > is > parallelizable, but even then it'd likely take a few hours to > generate > one of each size. I imagine that'd cause some complaints about > startup time. One way of handling this, at least if the moduli generation was nicely interruptable, is that distros ship a file, e.g. /etc/ssh/moduli.d...

...ess that R prefers to have as much resources as possible; especially memory. I've looked at some of the r-sig groups and it seems most threads about multicore or CPU's have to deal with using packages like parallel or snow or something such as this and leaving it up to the user what can be parallelized and how which makes perfect sense to me. The question I have is about what the advantage of machines with multiple cores or CPU's. To me, it seems that until R is parallelized (or if I am writing my own code that can run in a parallel fashion) that a single user and single (non-parallel)...

...his should be > enough to get the transformation working on simple loops, and when the > client is tested and working there, you can use it to evaluate whether > the precision improvements are worthwhile. In fact, I've a client to test dependence analysis. It's a simple loop parallelization pass. Basically, it tries to divide the set of iterations into smaller sets and execute them in separate threads. The loop is parallelized if it has appropriate shape (i.e. is rotated, has canonical indvar), has known iteration count (at runtime) and doesn't carry any dependence. The new d...

...also asking > > everyone to replace it with their own. > > That was the original intent (and it's mentioned in RFC4419) however > each moduli file we ship (70-80 instances of 6 sizes) takes about 1 > cpu-month to generate on a lowish-power x86-64 machine. Most of it is > parallelizable, but even then it'd likely take a few hours to generate > one of each size. I imagine that'd cause some complaints about > startup time. > > With those caveats, you are also welcome to add the appropriate > ssh-keygen commands to your startup scripts. > > -- > D...

...be pulled in by the page proper.) > Perl is pretty fast, and most of the work is being done by the database, > so I?m not sure how using an alternative to CGI could make things go faster. There are many reasons CGI is relatively slow. 1. If you have many connections per second, you need a parallelizable technology to make things go fast. If everything chokes down to a single thread, you?ve got a serious bottleneck when the CPS count gets high enough. 2. CGI re-launches the cgi-bin/* programs on every page hit. Since Perl doesn?t leave behind ?compiled? forms of the program as some other dyn...

Dear R gurus, I have a very embarrassingly parallelizable job that I am trying to speed up with snow on our local cluster. Basically, I am doing ~50,000 t.test for a series of micro-array experiments, one gene at a time. Thus, I can easily spread the load across multiple processors and nodes. So, I have a master list object that tells me what rows to...

...on could be distributed by a load-balancing strategy to the > computers sharing CPU resources. Using mechanisms such as "futures" (as > in Mozart) allows to do this easily... 1. It looks like you mean here, that one *must* change the code of Fib function in order to control the parallelization, right? 2. do you propose to ignore languages not supporting "continuation passing style"? > but I don't think these features > belong to the set of languages low level primitives and constructs. if you don't pollute Fib. function with explicit optimizations and...

...er r149761). If this "solution" causes other problems, > then we may need to think of something more sophisticated. I wonder if the case where a store is the last user of the value could be treated as a special case. The case where the code reads, computes and writes values in a fully parallelizable (unrolled) loop is an optimal case for vectorizing as it might not lead to any unpack/pack overheads at all. In case of the bb-vectorizer (if I understood the parameters correctly), if the final store (or actually, any final consumer of a value) is weighed more heavily in the "chain lengt...

Dear Mehdi, I've changed your example a little bit: float saxpy(float a, float *x, float *y, int n) { int j = 0; for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) { y[j] = a*x[i] + y[I]; // Change 'I' into 'j'? ++j; } } I get this code below, once I replace 'I' with 'j'. We are copying n positions of both arrays, 'x' and 'y': float saxpy(float a,

On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Wojciech Matyjewicz wrote: > Hi, > >> Cool! I think the most critical part of this is to get a good >> interface for dependence analysis. There are lots of interesting >> implementations that have various time/space tradeoffs. >> >> For example, it would be great if Omega was available as an option, >> even if the compiler