I may be talking out of my other end here, but... if you want something
like parMap to calculate all the pixels in parallel, then... can't you use
parMap itself?
Something like:
weirdParMap action = sequence_ . map action . parMap (id $!)
This evaluates all the elements of the list using parMap (the expensive
part, right?), and then sequentially applies the action on the current
thread.
JCAB
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:56:02 -0700, Mitar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
On 4/15/07, Spencer Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This version will fork a new thread for each action:
\begin{code}
import Control.Concurrent
import Control.Monad
parSequence_ xs = do
m <- newEmptyMVar
mapM_ (\x -> forkIO x >> putMVar m ()) xs
replicateM_ (length xs) (takeMVar m)
parMapM_ f xs = parSequence_ $ map f xs
\end{code}
OpenGL bindings successfully crash. The functional calculations in f
should be done in parallel, but those few OpenGL actions should still
be done sequentially. I am attaching the code in question. It is a
simple voxel raycasting engine.
(Any suggestions on other memory/performance improvements are more
than welcome.)
Mitar
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
