2008/7/17 Peter W. Draper <[log in to unmask]>:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Tim Jenness wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Is it worth moving thread-safe ems into trunk so that we can start using
>> it on a daily basis? I have no idea if David is testing it in his threaded
>> smurf but I think we should be giving the thread-safe ems a bashing in
>> single thread mode for a while.
>>
>> I'm hoping that AST thread-safe will be default for the next release in
>> the Autumn.
>
> Sounds like we should move it over as soon as possible. I've been using it
> (in thread-enabled mode, but naturally without any actual threads) and
> haven't had any problems, David has reported nothing from his SMURF efforts
> (but remains highly suspicious of everything I see),
I've been in touch with Tim about this - sorry for leaving you out.
Basically, on AMD systems the multi-threaded smurf seems to work,
giving the same output cubes as before, but with only marginal
decreases in run-time. In fact, the multi-threaded makemap application
takes slightly *more* time to run than the un-threaded version. There
seems to be a lot of contention going on somewhere. I don't know yet
whether it is related to the CPU cache or to application data
structures.
Things are worse on Intel systems, in that the multi-threaded apps
often fail to run at all, crashing at random places. Using Intel
compilers rather than gnu seems to fix this crashing problem. But of
course we cannot rely on Intel compilers. At the moment, I'm
struglling with the Intel thread checker tool, to see if it can cast
any light on where thingsd are going wrong.
David
so I've no actual
> reason to suspect it has issues...
>
> Make the call and I'll do the merge.
>
> Peter.
>
--
Note my change of e-mail address. Please send e-mail to
[log in to unmask] from now on.
|