On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:27 AM yongkee kwon <yongkee.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hartmut and Thomas, > > Thank you for the references. I will take a look at the benchmarks and the > publications. Hartmut's talks at CppCon brought me to HPX and I'm just done > with watching HPX tutorials in CSCS by Thomas and John. I do also thank you > for great lectures and tutorials about HPX.
Thanks! > > While I will be trying to learn more from the benchmarks and publications, > let me ask a bit more specific questions. First of all, is a coroutine > implemented in HPX is just about same as C++ coroutine discussed in TS, which > is stackless and relies solely on a compiler for transformations and > optimizations, or is there anything more in HPX than that? They are more or less two different concepts. The C++ coroutine TS deals with language and library extensions to allow for zero-cost abstractions to write coroutines. By itself, the couroutine TS is useless and specifies the basic concepts needed. This has been explored by a number of people now. mostly focusing on asynchronous I/O and related topics, not necessarily parallelism. See for example here: https://github.com/lewissbaker/cppcoro or here: http://ericniebler.com/2017/08/17/ranges-coroutines-and-react-early-musings-on-the-future-of-async-in-c/ > > Also, could any of you point out if there is any example with coroutines and > active messages? I found a few with await but unfortunately fibonacci_await > failed, as commented in CMakeList, with an exception( what(): abandoning not > ready shared state: HPX(broken_promise) ). I also found transpose_await but > haven't had a chance to run it. The await examples probably need some work to be adapted to the latest state of the TS. We haven't updated it in a long time ... PRs are welcome! > > More examples are always better so please let me know if there is any more > example for coroutines and active message. The nice thing about our abstractions build around hpx::future, is that they work the same, regardless if you have local work or invoke work remotely (through actions that is, which some refer to as active messages). I think there are lots of things which need to improved and worked on, depending on our actual research goal. Nevertheless, I think HPX is unique in offering a unified view (in terms of syntax and semantics) to shared memory and distributed memory parallelization which is hard to find in any other solution. So even if there are initial hiccups, I'd like to invite you to work with us to make your experience and HPX in general better. > > Thanks, > Yongkee > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:26 AM Thomas Heller <thom.hel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Yongkee, >> >> In addition to the performance tests, we published a wide range of >> papers looking at the performance. Pleas have a look here: >> http://stellar-group.org/publications/ >> >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:16 PM Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kai...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hey Yongkee, >> > >> > Thanks for your interest in HPX! >> > >> > > While I was looking for programming model and runtime system which >> > > support >> > > both active messages and coroutines, I get to know HPX and now I am >> > > trying >> > > to learn it with nice tutorials. >> > > >> > > I haven't (and can't) decided yet whether I am going for HPX for my >> > > research yet since I am not so sure if HPX is competitive in terms of its >> > > runtime performance (or overhead) as compared to others, if any. >> > > >> > > For example, I am wondering what differences are between HPX coroutines >> > > and LLVM implementation with libc++, which is also getting to pretty a >> > > stable stage I believe. For active messages I am not much aware of others >> > > but I remember UPC or UPC++ is designed as PGAS language. >> > > >> > > HPX is still the best candidate for my research because it supports all >> > > fun features within the single framework. But before going further, it >> > > would be great for me to see any study about how much the runtime system >> > > is comparatively lightweight and scalable especially in terms of both >> > > features: active messages and coroutines. >> > > >> > > Please let me know if there is any prior study for me. Also any comment >> > > with regard to my concerns above would be greatly appreciated! >> > >> > We have a couple of benchmarks here: >> > https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx/tree/master/tests/performance/local. >> > That's where you might be interested in starting your investigations. >> > >> > HTH >> > Regards Hartmut >> > --------------- >> > http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu >> > https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > hpx-users mailing list >> > hpx-users@stellar.cct.lsu.edu >> > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users >> _______________________________________________ >> hpx-users mailing list >> hpx-users@stellar.cct.lsu.edu >> https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users > > _______________________________________________ > hpx-users mailing list > hpx-users@stellar.cct.lsu.edu > https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users _______________________________________________ hpx-users mailing list hpx-users@stellar.cct.lsu.edu https://mail.cct.lsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/hpx-users
