On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jan-Pieter Jacobs
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The overhead issue is always there, and it is up to the user to not apply
> parallellization for things that are not worth parallellizing.
It might be nice to have a "parallelize this" adverb.
That said... you really want the data to already be in place on
parallel instances, and there's a certain amount of setup time to
publish them out.
Another critical issue is having a common language, for shipping
commands between parallel instances (this can be modeled using
independent processes but for real practical work you might want
independent machines, but the GPU variant is also interesting and has
some fascinating constraints).
In J, we would probably use 5!:5 to serialize and 0!:0 to deserialize?
Here's an illustration:
mean=: +/ %#
T=: 5!:5 <'mean'
A=: 'MEAN=:',T
0!:0 A
data=:2 3 5
0!:0 'V=:',5!:5 <'data'
0!:0]0 :0
smoutput MEAN V
)
3.33333
Thanks,
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
