On May 3, 2010 08:04:14 Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
> wrote:
> > In truth, nested data parallelism has taken longer than we'd hoped to be
> > ready for abuse :-). We have not lost enthusiasm though -- Manual,
> > Roman, Gabi, Ben, and I talk on the ph
> From: Roman Leshchinskiy
Following on this discussion, I have an algorithm that currently uses
BLAS to do the heavy work. I'd like to try to get it working with DPH
or Repa, although my prior attempts have been less than successful.
I have a vector of vectors where each element depends upon
On 04/05/2010, at 18:37, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
> * Roman Leshchinskiy [04.05.2010 10:02]:
>> On 04/05/2010, at 11:10, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
>>
>>> Here http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/newpapers/Abstracts/98-06-009.ps.gz is
>>> a description of a parallel version of
* Roman Leshchinskiy [04.05.2010 10:02]:
> On 04/05/2010, at 11:10, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
>
> > * Ben Lippmeier [04.05.2010 02:21]:
> >>
> >> You can certainly create an array with these values, but in the provided
> >> code it looks like each successive array element has a se
On 04/05/2010, at 11:10, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
> * Ben Lippmeier [04.05.2010 02:21]:
>>
>> You can certainly create an array with these values, but in the provided
>> code it looks like each successive array element has a serial dependency on
>> the previous two elements. How
* Roman Leshchinskiy [04.05.2010 02:32]:
> On 04/05/2010, at 09:21, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > on that topic, consider this (rather trivial) array:
> >
> > a = array (1,10) [ (i,f i) | i <-[1..10]] where
> > f 1 = 1
> > f 2 = 1
> > f i = a!(i-1) + a!(i-2)
> >
>
* Ben Lippmeier [04.05.2010 02:21]:
>
> You can certainly create an array with these values, but in the provided code
> it looks like each successive array element has a serial dependency on the
> previous two elements. How were you expecting it to parallelise?
actually, in reality it is rathe
On 04/05/2010, at 09:21, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on that topic, consider this (rather trivial) array:
>
> a = array (1,10) [ (i,f i) | i <-[1..10]] where
> f 1 = 1
> f 2 = 1
> f i = a!(i-1) + a!(i-2)
>
> (aah, school ;)
>
> Right now, I am abusing vector in ST by do
On 03/05/2010, at 10:04 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
> wrote:
> | Does this mean DPH is ready for abuse?
> |
> | The wiki page sounds pretty tentative, but it looks like it's been awhile
> | since it's been updated.
> |
> | http://www.haskell.org
You can certainly create an array with these values, but in the provided code
it looks like each successive array element has a serial dependency on the
previous two elements. How were you expecting it to parallelise?
Repa arrays don't support visible destructive update. For many algorithms you
choener:
>
> To summarise: I need arrays that allow in-place updates.
Many of the array libraries provide both mutable and immutable
interfaces, typically in ST or IO, including vector.
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskel
Sorry, to make it more clear:
in the line:
> write a (a'!(i-1) + a!(i-2))
only
> (a'!(i-1) + a!(i-2))
would need to be parallel, as there we typically have a sum/minimum or
whatever. The forM_ over each index does not need to be, since we have
to fill the array anyway...
* Christian Höner zu Si
Hi,
on that topic, consider this (rather trivial) array:
a = array (1,10) [ (i,f i) | i <-[1..10]] where
f 1 = 1
f 2 = 1
f i = a!(i-1) + a!(i-2)
(aah, school ;)
Right now, I am abusing vector in ST by doing this:
a <- new
a' <- freeze a
forM_ [3..10] $ \i -> do
write a (a'!(i-1) + a!(i
On 03/05/2010, at 22:04, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
> wrote:
> | Does this mean DPH is ready for abuse?
> |
> | The wiki page sounds pretty tentative, but it looks like it's been awhile
> | since it's been updated.
> |
> | http://www.haskell.org/has
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> | Does this mean DPH is ready for abuse?
> |
> | The wiki page sounds pretty tentative, but it looks like it's been awhile
> | since it's been updated.
> |
> | http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Data_Parallel_Haskell
>
> In truth, ne
| Does this mean DPH is ready for abuse?
|
| The wiki page sounds pretty tentative, but it looks like it's been awhile
| since it's been updated.
|
| http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/Data_Parallel_Haskell
In truth, nested data parallelism has taken longer than we'd hoped to be ready
for a
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 10:25 -0400, Tyson Whitehead wrote:
> On April 30, 2010 06:32:55 Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > In the last few years GHC has gained impressive support for parallel
> > programming on commodity multi-core systems. In addition to traditional
> > threads and shared variables, it suppo
On April 30, 2010 06:32:55 Duncan Coutts wrote:
> In the last few years GHC has gained impressive support for parallel
> programming on commodity multi-core systems. In addition to traditional
> threads and shared variables, it supports pure parallelism, software
> transactional memory (STM), and d
18 matches
Mail list logo
