On Monday 05 October 2009 11:35:09 Garth N. Wells wrote: > Johan Hake wrote: > > On Monday 05 October 2009 11:21:34 Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Johan Hake wrote: > >>> Hello! > >>> > >>> The one reason (as I can recall) to include the Data class, for passing > >>> of information to the former Function::eval method, was for future > >>> thread safety. > >> > >> I don't remember but that may be one of the reasons. There were others. > > > > Ok. > > > >>> Previously we stored the Cell, and some other stuff, as a public > >>> accessible member, before we called eval during assemble. This was not > >>> thread safe. > > It can be made thread-safe if Data has a copy constructor. I played with > parallelising the assembly loop using OpenMP, and to do that I needed > to add a copy constructor to UFC since each thread needed its own UFC > object.
Ok, but too much copying does not sound efficient? Johan > Garth > > Instead we agreed on passing this data as argument, making > > >>> it more thread safe. > >>> > >>> This might not be a big issue if we, when we implement support for > >>> threads (whenever this happens...) let the local Data object be stored > >>> in an indexed std::vector, and then keep the present eval interface. > >> > >> Sounds like it could work, but we'll see when get to that point. It > >> doesn't matter for the current parallel implementation. > > > > Ok. > > > > Johan > > _______________________________________________ > > DOLFIN-dev mailing list > > DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org > > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev > _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
