Hartmut and Thomas, Thank you for the references. I will take a look at the benchmarks and the publications. Hartmut's talks at CppCon brought me to HPX and I'm just done with watching HPX tutorials in CSCS by Thomas and John. I do also thank you for great lectures and tutorials about HPX.
While I will be trying to learn more from the benchmarks and publications, let me ask a bit more specific questions. First of all, is a coroutine implemented in HPX is just about same as C++ coroutine discussed in TS, which is stackless and relies solely on a compiler for transformations and optimizations, or is there anything more in HPX than that? Also, could any of you point out if there is any example with coroutines and active messages? I found a few with await but unfortunately fibonacci_await failed, as commented in CMakeList, with an exception( what(): abandoning not ready shared state: HPX(broken_promise) ). I also found transpose_await but haven't had a chance to run it. More examples are always better so please let me know if there is any more example for coroutines and active message. Thanks, Yongkee On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:26 AM Thomas Heller <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yongkee, > > In addition to the performance tests, we published a wide range of > papers looking at the performance. Pleas have a look here: > http://stellar-group.org/publications/ > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:16 PM Hartmut Kaiser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hey Yongkee, > > > > Thanks for your interest in HPX! > > > > > While I was looking for programming model and runtime system which > support > > > both active messages and coroutines, I get to know HPX and now I am > trying > > > to learn it with nice tutorials. > > > > > > I haven't (and can't) decided yet whether I am going for HPX for my > > > research yet since I am not so sure if HPX is competitive in terms of > its > > > runtime performance (or overhead) as compared to others, if any. > > > > > > For example, I am wondering what differences are between HPX coroutines > > > and LLVM implementation with libc++, which is also getting to pretty a > > > stable stage I believe. For active messages I am not much aware of > others > > > but I remember UPC or UPC++ is designed as PGAS language. > > > > > > HPX is still the best candidate for my research because it supports all > > > fun features within the single framework. But before going further, it > > > would be great for me to see any study about how much the runtime > system > > > is comparatively lightweight and scalable especially in terms of both > > > features: active messages and coroutines. > > > > > > Please let me know if there is any prior study for me. Also any comment > > > with regard to my concerns above would be greatly appreciated! > > > > We have a couple of benchmarks here: > > https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx/tree/master/tests/performance/local > . > > That's where you might be interested in starting your investigations. > > > > HTH > > Regards Hartmut > > --------------- > > http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu > > https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hpx-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users > _______________________________________________ > hpx-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users >
_______________________________________________ hpx-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users
