Re: [racket-users] trying to use futures for some calculations

2020-06-18 Thread Alex Harsanyi
Hi Dominic, Thanks for taking the time to look into this. For most of your suggestions I already suspected this to be the case, as I attempted to use futures several times in the past, but it is good to know that other people are of the same opinion. I looked at some other suggestions in

Re: [racket-users] trying to use futures for some calculations

2020-06-17 Thread Dominik Pantůček
Hi Alex, I finally got to investigate the issue in depth. And there are two major problems blocking your implementation from running the futures in parallel. 1) Allocations of boxed flonums. I tried to get rid of those by allocating "scratchpad" flvectors and mapping everything onto them. The

Re: [racket-users] trying to use futures for some calculations

2020-06-17 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
I tried this out, by adding 1.0 as the third argument in `in-range` in all cases. The performance in Racket BC increased, but there's still no parallelism. In Racket CS, it appears to have made things slower, so I need to investigate more. Sam On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Matthew Flatt

Re: [racket-users] trying to use futures for some calculations

2020-06-17 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:24:37 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > - on Racket BC, operations like `+` do indeed block ... which mixing, say, fixnum and flonum arguments, but not when operating on all fixnums or all flonums. In this case, it may be the `in-range` with flonum bounds that results in

Re: [racket-users] trying to use futures for some calculations

2020-06-17 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
I have not yet done much investigating on this, but: - on Racket BC, operations like `+` do indeed block, and effectively you need to replace them with lower-level operations that don't (such as `unsafe-fl+`). Typed Racket can help with this, or you can do it all by hand. As you note, that makes