public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: 김규래 <msca8h@naver.com>
To: "Janne Blomqvist" <blomqvist.janne@gmail.com>
Cc: "gcc mailing list" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [GSoC'19, libgomp work-stealing] Task parallelism runtime
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 17:54:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <59dbe23005b843ba6b1d95344d4f992@cweb012.nm.nfra.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAO9iq9EpiAaS1mMRoyeffJ=h6k-H_xtA4Z9rKPf5DPeLbtZhMQ@mail.gmail.com>

> Another option, which I guess starts to go out of scope of your gsoc, is
> parallel depth first (PDF) search (Blelloch 1999) as an alternative to work
> stealing. Here's a presentation about some recent work in this area,
> although for Julia and not OpenMP (no idea if PDF would fit with OpenMP at
> all): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdiZa0Y3F3c

I am actually aware of PDF and the works ongoing on the Julia side.
Also, I think it does not go out of the scope of GSoC,
since the essential goal is to implement a more advanced task parallel scheduler anyway.

> Better cache locality.
Despite previous research results that PDF is better in term of locality,
recently developed advanced work-stealing (WS) schemes improved a lot in terms of data locality.
I think an up-to-date quantitive comparison with SOTA algorithms from both sides is required.

Personally I think the WS framework is more flexible and popular? right now.
I'd like to hear the opinion of others on the subject.

Ray Kim

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-06 17:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-03 18:01 김규래
2019-06-03 18:21 ` Jakub Jelinek
2019-06-05 18:25   ` 김규래
2019-06-05 18:52     ` Jakub Jelinek
2019-06-05 19:06     ` Janne Blomqvist
2019-06-05 19:42       ` 김규래
2019-06-05 20:36         ` Janne Blomqvist
2019-06-06 17:54           ` 김규래 [this message]
     [not found] <e2a9f7c55311795785d0f2c47f70acbd@cweb001.nm.nfra.io>
2019-06-24 19:55 ` 김규래
2019-07-09 12:56 ` 김규래

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=59dbe23005b843ba6b1d95344d4f992@cweb012.nm.nfra.io \
    --to=msca8h@naver.com \
    --cc=blomqvist.janne@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).