Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> writes: > Hi Jed, > > Le 03/05/2019 à 05:47, Jed Brown a écrit : >> I would caution to please not commit to the MKL/BLAS model in which the >> library creates threads internally. It's a disaster for managing >> oversubscription and affinity issues among groups of threads and/or >> multiple processes (e.g., MPI). > > Implicit multi-threading is important for user-friendliness reasons > (especially in higher-level bindings such as the Python-bindings).
I would argue that can be tucked into bindings versus making it all-or-nothing in the C++ interface. It's at least worthy of discussion. >> The library is then free to use constructs like omp taskgroup/taskloop >> as granularity warrants; it will never utilize threads that the >> application didn't explicitly give it. > > I don't think we're planning to use OpenMP in Arrow, though Wes probably > has a better answer. I was just using it to demonstrate the semantic. Regardless of what Arrow uses internally, there will be a cohort of users who are interested in using Arrow with OpenMP.
