X10

Array initilaization is sequential (doesn't execute the initialization closure in a separate async for each point)

Details

  • Type: Bug Bug
  • Status: Closed Closed
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Won't Fix
  • Affects Version/s: X10 1.7.7, X10 2.0.0
  • Fix Version/s: None
  • Component/s: Class Library: Array Library
  • Labels:
    None
  • Number of attachments :
    1

Description

It appears that executing Array.make[T](D, Init) will cause Init to be evaluated in sequence at each point in D.region.

The evaluations should happen concurrently.

(In some cases this is a big performance hit.)

Issue Links

is depended upon by

Task - A task that needs to be done. XTENLANG-962 Array library redesign

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Closed - The issue is considered finished, the resolution is correct. Issues which are not closed can be reopened.
is related to

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. XTENLANG-1229 multi-threaded scaling of Array and DistArray initialization

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Igor Peshansky added a comment -

This is more than a performance issue. The closures in the initializer may expect to be executed concurrently, and may contain synchronization (e.g., clocks).

Show
Igor Peshansky added a comment - This is more than a performance issue. The closures in the initializer may expect to be executed concurrently, and may contain synchronization (e.g., clocks).
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

Array library re-design targeted at 2.1.

Show
David Grove added a comment - Array library re-design targeted at 2.1.
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

defer all non-critical X10 issues to 2.1.0.

Show
David Grove added a comment - defer all non-critical X10 issues to 2.1.0.
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

pushing out until we expect workstealing to become available. Then will consider how best to parallelize.

Show
David Grove added a comment - pushing out until we expect workstealing to become available. Then will consider how best to parallelize.
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

bulk defer of unresolved 2.1.0 bugs to 2.1.1.

Show
David Grove added a comment - bulk defer of unresolved 2.1.0 bugs to 2.1.1.
Hide
Permalink
Vijay Saraswat added a comment -

Added test.

Show
Vijay Saraswat added a comment - Added test.
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

bulk move of all unresolved issues from 2.1.1 to 2.1.2

Show
David Grove added a comment - bulk move of all unresolved issues from 2.1.1 to 2.1.2
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

how we approach this really depends on whether or not we are going to have workstealing.

Show
David Grove added a comment - how we approach this really depends on whether or not we are going to have workstealing.
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

We have decided to specify array initialization such that this test case is invalid.

r20618 updated the API doc and removed the test case.

Show
David Grove added a comment - We have decided to specify array initialization such that this test case is invalid. r20618 updated the API doc and removed the test case.
Hide
Permalink
David Grove added a comment -

bulk close of resolved issues with unspecified fix target (svn head, won't fix, duplicate, etc).

Show
David Grove added a comment - bulk close of resolved issues with unspecified fix target (svn head, won't fix, duplicate, etc).

People

  • Assignee:
    David Grove
    Reporter:
    Vijay Saraswat
Vote (1)
Watch (0)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: