Is there a claim of a mutex bottleneck in mxnet? I am not aware of any, unless someone knows otherwise.
Database engines tend to be collision-happy, but mxnet does not seem to be as far as I know, unless someone knows differently. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do we have performance/profiling measurement evidence to prove/disprove the > claims of the impact of mutex bottleneck in MXNet? > > Bhavin Thaker. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:03 AM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > If they are not bottleneck. Then resorting to standard library solution > is > > always preferred > > > > Tianqi > > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Was doing some timing with futexes (we used them a lot in a previous > life > > > in database engines) and they're consistently about 20-30% faster than > > > standard mutexes in Linux. > > > > > > However, it seems like this is not worth making a change since mutexes > > > don't tend to get called so much that it would seem to make a > noticeable > > > difference, although I could be wrong -- so far besides the queue, I am > > not > > > aware of any major bottlenecks on mutexes. > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > >
