Hi Larry, Would TBB still be required by OSL with options 2 and 3?
If not, that'd be my vote (I'm pretty much always in favor of reducing dependencies). Best, Erich On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Larry Gritz wrote: > Related to this pull request: https://github.com/OpenImageIO/oiio/pull/273 > > I made some benchmarks and determined that our own homegrown atomic_int is > exactly the same performance as what we get from TBB. > > After beefing up our spin_mutex implementation, we are still slower than > TBB's, but within a factor of 2 generally, and that's on a pathological test > that stresses spin_mutex in an unrealistic way; we don't think you'll see a > difference in real-world programs that do more than repeatedly lock and > unlock the spin locks. > > In light of this, should we: > > 0. Do nothing -- use TBB by default, but allow optional build time USE_TBB=0 > to turn it off (necessary for platforms that TBB does not support). > 1. Use our own code (i.e. USE_TBB=0) by default, but allow USE_TBB=1 to > optionally be set at build time, which reverts back to the old way (using the > copied TBB code in our tree). > 2. Use our own code by default, but allow USE_TBB=1 to optionally be set at > build time, which uses/requires a system-installed TBB (removing remnants of > TBB source from our tree). > 3. Not support TBB at all, just use our own code (simpler, fewer > dependencies, but possible minor performance penalty on the platforms for > which TBB still seems faster than our own code). > > Opinions? > > -- > Larry Gritz > [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > Oiio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org _______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
