Skip to content

[WIP] Add more documentation regarding parallelism #1827

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[WIP] Add more documentation regarding parallelism #1827

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

TiborGY
Copy link
Contributor

@TiborGY TiborGY commented Oct 21, 2018

No description provided.

@brada4
Copy link
Contributor

brada4 commented Oct 21, 2018

Aint it better to improve Makefile.rule where the mystery options are set instead?

@TiborGY
Copy link
Contributor Author

TiborGY commented Oct 21, 2018

Aint it better to improve Makefile.rule where the mystery options are set instead?

Maybe, but I am working on a more extensive piece of documentation on threading. Too long to be reasonably included in Makefile.rule.

@brada4
Copy link
Contributor

brada4 commented Oct 21, 2018

Are you sure it is necessary

  • there is no complete OMP hierachy support, but will be hopefully
  • new code trigerred by USE_TLS=1 in Makefile.rule will make most MM parallel without extra locking

@martin-frbg
Copy link
Collaborator

No offence meant, but I wonder if it would be more appropriate if you developed this piece of documentation in the wiki of your fork first ? (BTW OpenBLAS is continuing the original GotoBLAS work of K.Goto, a statement like "the project aims to develop a BLAS package" makes it look as if it was incomplete or its API unstable)

@TiborGY
Copy link
Contributor Author

TiborGY commented Oct 21, 2018

No offence meant, but I wonder if it would be more appropriate if you developed this piece of documentation in the wiki of your fork first ? (BTW OpenBLAS is continuing the original GotoBLAS work of K.Goto, a statement like "the project aims to develop a BLAS package" makes it look as if it was incomplete or its API unstable)

Oh OK, the fact that even the wiki is forked on GitHub was never in my thoughts, good idea.
The language used may need adjustment/rephrasing. All suggestions are welcome.

@TiborGY
Copy link
Contributor Author

TiborGY commented Nov 25, 2018

Given the currently open threading issues, I will probably wait with doing this until things have settled down, one way or another.

@brada4
Copy link
Contributor

brada4 commented Nov 26, 2018

Check #1882 (comment) with some input for what happens in case where you try to mix OMP implementations.

@rgommers
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is only a few sentences and at this point seems abandoned. So I think it can be closed.

Note that in the docs there are a number of places where parallelism is discussed, e.g.:

@TiborGY
Copy link
Contributor Author

TiborGY commented Dec 18, 2024

sure, I never got around to progress with this

@TiborGY TiborGY closed this Dec 18, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants