[Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pbm.comTue Dec 11 14:27:26 PST 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:52:11AM -0500, Joe Landman wrote: > On the contrary, it is precisely because people are asking "how should I > parallelize" that they need to ask the basic question of "where does my > code spend time for my problems." OK, so say I have a garden-variety finite-difference code. I know how to use OpenMP to parallelize all the loops, and how to use halo exchange with MPI to parallelize it. And maybe I'm even clever enough to know how to use halo exchange with OpenMP, which is pretty ugly code, but has better locality and scalability. Before I've coded all 3 up, how does that help me pick which method to use? It doesn't. And that's the question people are asking: should I spend the time to implement X or Y in the hopes it'll be faster than my existing code Z? -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Next message: [Beowulf] multi-threading vs. MPI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
