Mark H Weaver skribis:
> I must say that 'par-map' has shockingly poor performance.
> We really ought to try to improve this.
IMO we must improve futures, not necessarily ‘par-map’ itself, because
lists are not a good data structure for parallel processing anyway (“get
rid of cons” said Steele ;
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine writes:
> Oh, sorry to email twice so soon, but I have an idea for making
> par-map usable in more cases: add a keyword argument called
> "block-size". Its value should be a positive integer, and the meaning
> is to have each thread do block-size iterations.
IMO, we should a
Oh, sorry to email twice so soon, but I have an idea for making par-map
usable in more cases: add a keyword argument called "block-size". Its value
should be a positive integer, and the meaning is to have each thread do
block-size iterations. That should make it easier to use par-map for cases
like
I agree. Do you have any idea what's causing the overhead?
I tried to benchmark it, but got a segmentation fault. I think we have
plenty of work to do here. :-)
Noah
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > Nala Ginrut writes:
> >> cut---
