.tutorial

git-svn-id: svn://ultimatepp.org/upp/trunk@10558 f0d560ea-af0d-0410-9eb7-867de7ffcac7
This commit is contained in:
cxl 2016-12-19 15:00:48 +00:00
parent f12b0dc887
commit 844599b61c
3 changed files with 41 additions and 12 deletions

View file

@ -4,6 +4,10 @@ void CoPartitionTutorial()
{
/// .CoPartition
/// There is some overhead associated with CoWork worker threads. That is why e.g.
/// performing a simple operation on the array spawning worker thread for each element is
/// not a good idea performance wise:
Vector<int> data;
for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
data.Add(i);
@ -16,7 +20,12 @@ void CoPartitionTutorial()
co.Finish();
DUMP(sum);
///
/// Above code computes the sum of all elements in the `Vector`, using CoWorker job for
/// each element. While producing the correct reason, it is likely to run much slower than
/// single-threaded version.
/// The solution to the problem is to split the array into small number of larger subranges
/// that are processed in parallel. This is what `CoPartition` template algorithm does:
sum = 0;
CoPartition(data, [&sum](const auto& subrange) {
@ -28,7 +37,8 @@ void CoPartitionTutorial()
});
DUMP(sum);
///
/// Note that CoPartition is still internally used, so `CoWork::FinLock` is available.
/// Instead of working on subranges, it is also possible to use iterators:
sum = 0;
CoPartition(data.begin(), data.end(), [&sum] (auto l, auto h) {
@ -40,7 +50,8 @@ void CoPartitionTutorial()
});
DUMP(sum);
///
/// There is no requirement on the type of iterators, so it is even possible to use just
/// indices:
sum = 0;
CoPartition(0, data.GetCount(), [&sum, &data] (int l, int h) {
@ -53,4 +64,4 @@ void CoPartitionTutorial()
DUMP(sum);
///
}
}

View file

@ -3,6 +3,17 @@
void CoWorkTutorial()
{
/// .`CoWork`
/// `CoWork` is intented to be use when thread are used to speedup code by distributing tasks
/// over multiple CPU cores. `CoWork` spans a single set of worker threads that exist for the
/// whole duration of program run. `CoWork` instances then manage assigning jobs to these
/// worker threads and waiting for the all work to finish.
/// Job units to `CoWork` are represented by `Function<void ()>` and thus can be written
/// inline as lambdas.
/// As an example, following code reads input file by lines, splits lines into words (this
/// is the parallelized work) and then adds resulting words to `Index`:
FileIn in(GetDataFile("test.txt")); // let us open some tutorial testing data
@ -13,18 +24,22 @@ void CoWorkTutorial()
while(!in.IsEof()) {
String ln = in.GetLine();
co & [ln, &w, &m] {
for(const auto& s : Split(ln, [](int c) { return IsAlpha(c) ? 0 : c; })) {
Mutex::Lock __(m);
Vector<String> h = Split(ln, [](int c) { return IsAlpha(c) ? 0 : c; });
Mutex::Lock __(m);
for(const auto& s : h)
w.FindAdd(s);
}
};
}
co.Finish();
DUMP(w);
///
/// Adding words to `w` requires `Mutex`. Alternative to this 'result gathering' `Mutex` is
/// CoWork::FinLock. The idea behind this is that CoWork requires an internal `Mutex` to
/// serialize access to common data, so why `FinLock` locks this internal mutex a bit
/// earlier, saving CPU cycles required to lock and unlock dedicated mutex. From API
/// contract perspective, you can consider `FinLock` to serialize code till the end of
/// worker job.
in.Seek(0);
while(!in.IsEof()) {
@ -36,8 +51,11 @@ void CoWorkTutorial()
w.FindAdd(s);
};
}
co.Finish();
DUMP(w);
///
/// Of course, the code performed after FinLock should not take long, otherwise there is
/// negative impact on all CoWork instances. In fact, from this perspective, above code is
/// probably past this threshold...
}

View file

@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ void ConditionVariableTutorial()
t.Wait();
/// Important note: rarely thread can be resumed from `Wait` even if no other called
/// `Signal`. This is not a bud, but ^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_wakeup:design
/// `Signal`. This is not a bug, but ^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_wakeup:design
/// decision for performance reason^. In practice it only means that situation has to be
/// (re)checked after resume.
}