Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

R&D for TaskScheduler to have multiple queues #565

Closed
hcedwar opened this issue Dec 7, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

R&D for TaskScheduler to have multiple queues #565

hcedwar opened this issue Dec 7, 2016 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Feature Request Create new capability; will potentially require voting
Milestone

Comments

@hcedwar
Copy link
Contributor

hcedwar commented Dec 7, 2016

Potential reduce contention. Given current use of atomics for queue modification is open question as to the performance impact.

@hcedwar hcedwar added the Feature Request Create new capability; will potentially require voting label Dec 7, 2016
@hcedwar hcedwar added this to the Backlog milestone Dec 7, 2016
@nmhamster
Copy link
Contributor

Are you considering smaller local queues for threads to reduce contention in the normal case? If their local is exhausted pull from others/master queue? If atomics are local to the queue they should complete very quickly (because zero contention except for task insertion).

@hcedwar
Copy link
Contributor Author

hcedwar commented Dec 7, 2016

Another dimension of this R&D is if cores have variable performance then try to match task priority level to core performance.

@hcedwar hcedwar added this to Backlog in On-node Task DAG Jul 20, 2017
@ibaned ibaned modified the milestones: Backlog, 2018 June Mar 14, 2018
@dsunder dsunder modified the milestones: 2018 July, Backlog May 23, 2018
@crtrott crtrott assigned dhollman and unassigned ndellingwood Nov 7, 2018
@dhollman
Copy link

Now that the tasking work from earlier this year is merged, I'm going to call this done and close this issue.

@ibaned
Copy link
Contributor

ibaned commented Mar 20, 2019

Reopening with InDevelop, which is basically the same as closed but follows our workflow of not closing until a develop->master promotion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Feature Request Create new capability; will potentially require voting
Projects
No open projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants