That's actually a great idea, especially since the safe variants of the calls are already in place.
* Carter Schonwald <carter.schonw...@gmail.com> [14.08.2014 23:10]: > have a smart wrapper around you ffi call, and if when you think the ffi > call will take more than 1 microsecond, ALWAYS use the safe ffi call, > i do something like this in an FFI i wrote, it works great > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Christian HAP:ner zu Siederdissen > <choe...@tbi.univie.ac.at> wrote: > > Thanks, > > I've played around some more and finally more than one capability is > active. And indeed, unsafe calls don't block everything. I /had/ > actually read that but when I saw the system spending basically only > 100% cpu time, I'd thought to ask. > > One problem with this program seems to be that the different tasks are > of vastly different sizes. Inputs range from ~ 7x10^1 to ~ 3x10^7 > elements inducing waits with the larger problem sizes. > > We'll keep the program single-threaded for now as this also keeps memory > consumption at only 25 gbyte instead of the more impressive 70 gbyte in > multi-threaded mode ;-) > > Viele Gruesse, > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
pgpdqcfI0RC24.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users