Hi Marshall, I think we're definitely on the right track. If I replace the reverse call with the following function I get a parallel speedup of ~7.3 on an 8 core machine.
(defn copy-to-java-list [coll] (let [lst (java.util.LinkedList.)] (doseq [x coll] (.addFirst lst x)) lst)) This function should do as much memory allocation as the clojure reverse but has vastly better parallel performance. There does seem to be something unusual about conj and clojure.lang.PersistentList in this parallel test case and I don't think it's related to the JVMs memory allocation. Cameron. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en