Quantcast

Base.Threads user feedback: it's great. please keep it. anyone tried hybrid (addprocs + Threads)?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Base.Threads user feedback: it's great. please keep it. anyone tried hybrid (addprocs + Threads)?

Florian Oswald
I'm not sure how many people are using Base.Threads out there, I came across it by accident and think it works great. It's under the heading "experimental" in the manual, so I just wanted to encourage the developers that this is a great feature, please don't drop it. I just wrote @threads in front of a loop in my code and time was cut by pretty much exactly JULIA_NUM_THREADS. 

Along those lines, has anyone tried to run a hybrid job, i.e. connecting several machines via `addprocs` and running several threads on each of those machines? Is something like that even possible and/or do you recommend something like that? There is not too much in the manual, so I would just like to get some more info.

thanks.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Base.Threads user feedback: it's great. please keep it. anyone tried hybrid (addprocs + Threads)?

Yichao Yu
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Florian Oswald
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not sure how many people are using Base.Threads out there, I came across
> it by accident and think it works great. It's under the heading
> "experimental" in the manual, so I just wanted to encourage the developers
> that this is a great feature, please don't drop it. I just wrote @threads in
> front of a loop in my code and time was cut by pretty much exactly
> JULIA_NUM_THREADS.

It's experimental in that apart from some really simple cases, code
that uses thread can easily crash.
It is not recommended to use threading at this stage.

>
> Along those lines, has anyone tried to run a hybrid job, i.e. connecting
> several machines via `addprocs` and running several threads on each of those
> machines? Is something like that even possible and/or do you recommend
> something like that? There is not too much in the manual, so I would just
> like to get some more info.

Doing so is certainly possible but is not recommended since threading
itself isn't.

>
> thanks.
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Base.Threads user feedback: it's great. please keep it. anyone tried hybrid (addprocs + Threads)?

Florian Oswald
ok, thanks for that. do you think this is going to change already in v0.6 or will that have to wait until a future release?


On 14 November 2016 at 23:59, Yichao Yu <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Florian Oswald
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not sure how many people are using Base.Threads out there, I came across
> it by accident and think it works great. It's under the heading
> "experimental" in the manual, so I just wanted to encourage the developers
> that this is a great feature, please don't drop it. I just wrote @threads in
> front of a loop in my code and time was cut by pretty much exactly
> JULIA_NUM_THREADS.

It's experimental in that apart from some really simple cases, code
that uses thread can easily crash.
It is not recommended to use threading at this stage.

>
> Along those lines, has anyone tried to run a hybrid job, i.e. connecting
> several machines via `addprocs` and running several threads on each of those
> machines? Is something like that even possible and/or do you recommend
> something like that? There is not too much in the manual, so I would just
> like to get some more info.

Doing so is certainly possible but is not recommended since threading
itself isn't.

>
> thanks.
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Base.Threads user feedback: it's great. please keep it. anyone tried hybrid (addprocs + Threads)?

Yichao Yu
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Florian Oswald
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> ok, thanks for that. do you think this is going to change already in v0.6 or
> will that have to wait until a future release?

There will be improvements but it's very likely still going to be
experimental in 0.6.

>
>
> On 14 November 2016 at 23:59, Yichao Yu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Florian Oswald
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > I'm not sure how many people are using Base.Threads out there, I came
>> > across
>> > it by accident and think it works great. It's under the heading
>> > "experimental" in the manual, so I just wanted to encourage the
>> > developers
>> > that this is a great feature, please don't drop it. I just wrote
>> > @threads in
>> > front of a loop in my code and time was cut by pretty much exactly
>> > JULIA_NUM_THREADS.
>>
>> It's experimental in that apart from some really simple cases, code
>> that uses thread can easily crash.
>> It is not recommended to use threading at this stage.
>>
>> >
>> > Along those lines, has anyone tried to run a hybrid job, i.e. connecting
>> > several machines via `addprocs` and running several threads on each of
>> > those
>> > machines? Is something like that even possible and/or do you recommend
>> > something like that? There is not too much in the manual, so I would
>> > just
>> > like to get some more info.
>>
>> Doing so is certainly possible but is not recommended since threading
>> itself isn't.
>>
>> >
>> > thanks.
>> >
>> >
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Base.Threads user feedback: it's great. please keep it. anyone tried hybrid (addprocs + Threads)?

Stefan Karpinski
There's no risk of threading being removed. It's only experimental, as per Yichao, in the sense that it's currently not ready for production use.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Yichao Yu <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Florian Oswald
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> ok, thanks for that. do you think this is going to change already in v0.6 or
> will that have to wait until a future release?

There will be improvements but it's very likely still going to be
experimental in 0.6.

>
>
> On 14 November 2016 at 23:59, Yichao Yu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Florian Oswald
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > I'm not sure how many people are using Base.Threads out there, I came
>> > across
>> > it by accident and think it works great. It's under the heading
>> > "experimental" in the manual, so I just wanted to encourage the
>> > developers
>> > that this is a great feature, please don't drop it. I just wrote
>> > @threads in
>> > front of a loop in my code and time was cut by pretty much exactly
>> > JULIA_NUM_THREADS.
>>
>> It's experimental in that apart from some really simple cases, code
>> that uses thread can easily crash.
>> It is not recommended to use threading at this stage.
>>
>> >
>> > Along those lines, has anyone tried to run a hybrid job, i.e. connecting
>> > several machines via `addprocs` and running several threads on each of
>> > those
>> > machines? Is something like that even possible and/or do you recommend
>> > something like that? There is not too much in the manual, so I would
>> > just
>> > like to get some more info.
>>
>> Doing so is certainly possible but is not recommended since threading
>> itself isn't.
>>
>> >
>> > thanks.
>> >
>> >
>
>

Loading...