Ray Kim Thanks - I understand now - I should have realized from the abstract I read of one of the papers that it was for loop scheduling.
In that case - yes, certainly it would be an interesting project - it would fit in nicely with some cleanup/fixes that we are planning on the schedulers anyway and provide a good way of testing other strategies for task assignment/creation. I’ll read the paper you cited - the lead author is one of the professors we work with at CSCS, so although I’ve never met her, I know of her workl. So the answer to your original question is yes - this would make an excellent gsoc project for next year. If you need help to get started, just ask. Join IRC if you plan on chatting ‘live’ with other devs. Usualy about 3 of us are online duting EU office hours, and a couple during USA office hours. JB From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of ??? Sent: 07 November 2018 09:29 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [hpx-users] More scheduling algorithms Hi John, It seems to me that the scheduling algorithms your thinking are task scheduling algorithms, am I right? The scheduling algorithms I listed are chunk scheduling algorithms (or loop scheduling). They try to determine how many chunks they should bundle in order to achieve maximum performance. In the HPX context the job would be to add executors along guided, auto, and dynamic. (hpx/parallel/executors) There was a recent experimental review paper on the subject [1] I recommend this one. By the way if there is a task scheduling algorithm you can suggest, I think I would more than happy to look into it. Ray Kim Sogang University [1] Ciorba, Florina & Iwainsky, Christian & Buder, Patrick. (2018). OpenMP Loop Scheduling Revisited: Making a Case for More Schedules. 14th International Workshop on OpenMP, IWOMP 2018, Barcelona, Spain, September 26–28, 2018, Proceedings -----Original Message----- From: "Biddiscombe, John A."<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Cc: Sent: 2018-11-07 (수) 16:45:51 Subject: Re: [hpx-users] More scheduling algorithms Ray Kim Sounds like it could be an interesting project for next year’s gsoc. To write a decent proposal, you spend a bit of time looking at the existing schedulers and how they interact with the task creation and destruction, context switching and stack allocation, because unfortunately, that’s where most of the overheads in our current scheduling lie. I am not familiar with all of the scheduling algorithms that you listed below - I suspect that they make use of cost functions to determine which tasks should be executed next. Are there specific use cases where certain scheduling algorithms are more applicable than others? If there is a paper you can suggest I read that compares some of the trade offs, it’d be nice to have a look at it. (I quickly googled, but don’t have time to read all the stuff I found, so maybe you could suggest a good one). JB From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of ??? Sent: 07 November 2018 04:44 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [hpx-users] More scheduling algorithms Hi everyone, I'm a student from Korea researching scheduling algorithms. I noticed that HPX only has a limited number of scheduling algorithms. What do you think if I propose to add more scheduling algorithms to HPX for GSoC 2019? Notably the Factoring, Adaptive Factoring, Tapering, Trapezoid, Quadratic schedules. Ray Kim [https://mail.naver.com/readReceipt/notify/?img=ulFcazJobr9vFzFoKxmsK6JSpztwM4F4potwFAk4a6E%2FK4Eda6FvtzFXp6UmaVl5WLl51zlqDBFdp6d5MreRhoRcbH2R%2BBF0bNFgbX30WzwCbSloMXt5WHF974kv%2Bt%3D%3D.gif]
_______________________________________________ hpx-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users
