Hi Tomasz

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tomasz Janeczko <[email protected]>wrote:

>
>
> Hello,
> evolves.) As to technical reasons - among other things - to do actual
> tests. 4 years ago I have written portions of AFL engine using OpenMP
> (parallel library) to test actual, real-world performance of parallel
> (multi-core) code vs single-core on AMD Athlon64x2 (2core) Last year, I
> bought i7 to re-run those tests on latest hardware. The conclusion is the
> same, fine-grain parallelism (the one that OpenMP supports)  with 3:1 memory
> to FPU ratio makes no sense  performance-wise. You need much more FPU/CPU
> calcs per single memory access to make it worthwhile.
>

Have you taken a look at Intel's Threading Building Blocks library?  It is
strictly C++ (unless they have released versions for other languages since
last I looked), and I doubt it would provide benefit for either the
presentation layer or data layer, but it may prove useful for the business
layer.  As I understand it, it provides a form of parallelism complementary
to that provided by OpenMP (the two can be used together).  It is written to
mirror the normal usage of the containers in STL, and saves the programmer
from having to worry about threading strategies, or the detail work involved
in creating, managing and freeing threads.  Better, the library itself has
logic built in to determine, within limits, the optimal threading strategy
(the programmer can reset these limits should he see a need to do so), and
it does so based on the hardware it finds itself running on.  This means
that once you have built your program, you need not rebuild it for each
different architecture.  The studies I have read indicate it has respectable
scaling properties.  The downside is that for an existing application, good
usage means a lot of code has to be rewritten, and some optimization options
for single threaded code are not possible, or at least extremely difficult,
to use.

If you have looked at Intel's TBB library, I'd be interested in hearing what
your experience with it was.

Cheers

Ted

Reply via email to