I see. Thanks for the answers. Any data structure or source annotation that would prevent that?
For example, if I try the same program to run on a [1..9999999999999999] list, I'll get an out of memory error for the single-threaded version. Any way to prevent it without declaring two different versions of "list"? 2012/3/10 Anthony Cowley <[email protected]>: > From that profiling data, I think you're just seeing a decrease in sharing. > With one thread, you create the list structure in memory: the first fold > could consume it in-place, but the second fold is still waiting for its turn. > The list is built on the heap so the two folds can both refer to the same > list. > > With two threads, GHC is being clever and inlining the definition you give > for list, which is then optimized into two parallel loops. No list on the > heap means there's not much for the GC to do. > > Sharing of index lists like this is a common source of problems. In > particular, nested loops can make it even trickier to prevent sharing as > there may not be an opportunity for parallel evaluation. > > Anthony > > On Mar 10, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Thiago Negri <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all. >> >> I wrote a very simple program to try out parallel Haskel and check how >> it would look like to make use of more than one core in this language. >> >> When I tried the program with RTS option -N1, total time shows it took >> 2.48 seconds to complete and around 65% of that time was taken by GC. >> >> Then I tried the same program with RTS options -N2 and total time >> decreased to 1.15 seconds as I expected a gain here. But what I didn't >> expect is the GC time to drop to 0%. >> >> I guess I'm having trouble to understand the output of the RTS option -s. >> Can you enlighten me? >> >> >> The source for the testing program: >> >>> module Main where >>> >>> import Data.List (foldl1') >>> import Control.Parallel (par, pseq) >>> import Control.Arrow ((&&&)) >>> >>> f `parApp` (a, b) = a `par` (b `pseq` (f a b)) >>> seqApp = uncurry >>> >>> main = print result >>> where result = (+) `parApp` minMax list >>> minMax = minlist &&& maxlist >>> minlist = foldl1' min >>> maxlist = foldl1' max >>> list = [1..19999999] >> >> >> The results on a Windows 7 64bits with an Intel Core 2 Duo, compiled >> with GHC from Haskell Platform: >> >> c:\tmp\hs>par +RTS -s -N1 >> par +RTS -s -N1 >> 20000000 >> 803,186,152 bytes allocated in the heap >> 859,916,960 bytes copied during GC >> 233,465,740 bytes maximum residency (10 sample(s)) >> 30,065,860 bytes maximum slop >> 483 MB total memory in use (0 MB lost due to fragmentation) >> >> Generation 0: 1523 collections, 0 parallel, 0.80s, 0.75s elapsed >> Generation 1: 10 collections, 0 parallel, 0.83s, 0.99s elapsed >> >> Parallel GC work balance: nan (0 / 0, ideal 1) >> >> MUT time (elapsed) GC time (elapsed) >> Task 0 (worker) : 0.00s ( 0.90s) 0.00s ( 0.06s) >> Task 1 (worker) : 0.00s ( 0.90s) 0.00s ( 0.00s) >> Task 2 (bound) : 0.86s ( 0.90s) 1.62s ( 1.69s) >> >> SPARKS: 1 (0 converted, 0 pruned) >> >> INIT time 0.00s ( 0.00s elapsed) >> MUT time 0.86s ( 0.90s elapsed) >> GC time 1.62s ( 1.74s elapsed) >> EXIT time 0.00s ( 0.00s elapsed) >> Total time 2.48s ( 2.65s elapsed) >> >> %GC time 65.4% (65.9% elapsed) >> >> Alloc rate 936,110,032 bytes per MUT second >> >> Productivity 34.6% of total user, 32.4% of total elapsed >> >> gc_alloc_block_sync: 0 >> whitehole_spin: 0 >> gen[0].sync_large_objects: 0 >> gen[1].sync_large_objects: 0 >> >> >> c:\tmp\hs>par +RTS -s -N2 >> par +RTS -s -N2 >> 20000000 >> 1,606,279,644 bytes allocated in the heap >> 74,924 bytes copied during GC >> 28,340 bytes maximum residency (1 sample(s)) >> 29,004 bytes maximum slop >> 2 MB total memory in use (0 MB lost due to fragmentation) >> >> Generation 0: 1566 collections, 1565 parallel, 0.00s, 0.01s elapsed >> Generation 1: 1 collections, 1 parallel, 0.00s, 0.00s elapsed >> >> Parallel GC work balance: 1.78 (15495 / 8703, ideal 2) >> >> MUT time (elapsed) GC time (elapsed) >> Task 0 (worker) : 0.00s ( 0.59s) 0.00s ( 0.00s) >> Task 1 (worker) : 0.58s ( 0.59s) 0.00s ( 0.01s) >> Task 2 (bound) : 0.58s ( 0.59s) 0.00s ( 0.00s) >> Task 3 (worker) : 0.00s ( 0.59s) 0.00s ( 0.00s) >> >> SPARKS: 1 (1 converted, 0 pruned) >> >> INIT time 0.00s ( 0.00s elapsed) >> MUT time 1.15s ( 0.59s elapsed) >> GC time 0.00s ( 0.01s elapsed) >> EXIT time 0.00s ( 0.00s elapsed) >> Total time 1.15s ( 0.61s elapsed) >> >> %GC time 0.0% (2.4% elapsed) >> >> Alloc rate 1,391,432,695 bytes per MUT second >> >> Productivity 100.0% of total user, 190.3% of total elapsed >> >> gc_alloc_block_sync: 90 >> whitehole_spin: 0 >> gen[0].sync_large_objects: 0 >> gen[1].sync_large_objects: 0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
