I wonder if the threading branch is already useful for such stuff. -viral
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 9:43:27 AM UTC+5:30, Arch Robison wrote: > > Yes, multithreading would have been helpful. I had a table that was up to > about 2 MByte per thread, and 8 hardware threads on the machine. With only > 8 MByte of outer-level cache, running all 8 hardware threads with separate > processes meant having 8 copies of the table, and thrashing cache badly. > It would have been nice to share the table among the threads. > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> > wrote: > >> Very nice. Would this problem benefit even more from multithreading? >> >> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Arch Robison <arch.d.robi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> FYI, I won 2nd place in the recent Al Zimmerman programming contest >>> "Delacorte >>> Numbers <http://trdb.org/Contest/DelacorteNumbers/Standings>", using >>> only Julia and a quad-core MonkeyStation Pro >>> <http://www.blonzonics.us/odd/monkeystation-pro>. Julia worked out >>> well because it had: >>> >>> - interactivity to study the problem >>> - quick prototyping to try ideas >>> - fast scalar code >>> - fast SIMD loops >>> >>> I've working on a paper that will describe the experience in more detail. >>> >>> - Arch >>> >>> >> >
