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

Use atomic_pointer* methods when available #14

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 28, 2024

Conversation

jpsamaroo
Copy link
Member

Todo:

  • Add modify! implementation

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 4, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 47.36842% with 10 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.66%. Comparing base (934c34d) to head (0953048).

Files Patch % Lines
src/core.jl 47.36% 10 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #14       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   98.00%   81.66%   -16.34%     
===========================================
  Files           4        4               
  Lines          50       60       +10     
===========================================
  Hits           49       49               
- Misses          1       11       +10     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 81.66% <47.36%> (-16.34%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@willow-ahrens
Copy link

willow-ahrens commented Nov 7, 2024

I'm curious, on my machine I'm noticing that the llvm approach is faster than the atomic_pointermodify approach. Is this expected? Do you plan to continue using this package as Julia begins to provide more atomic operations?

@vchuravy vchuravy force-pushed the jps/core-intrinsics branch from 0953048 to eb55bd3 Compare November 28, 2024 11:14
@vchuravy
Copy link
Member

I'm curious, on my machine I'm noticing that the llvm approach is faster than the atomic_pointermodify approach. Is this expected? Do you plan to continue using this package as Julia begins to provide more atomic operations?

That isn't expected... Do you have a MWE?

@vchuravy vchuravy requested a review from maleadt November 28, 2024 11:16
@vchuravy
Copy link
Member

I'm curious, on my machine I'm noticing that the llvm approach is faster than the atomic_pointermodify approach. Is this expected? Do you plan to continue using this package as Julia begins to provide more atomic operations?

Actually it is expected, this PR got never merged :/

JuliaLang/julia#45122

@willow-ahrens
Copy link

Ah, that's unfortunate! It would be great if Julia had better support for atomic increment. Do we know if anything is planned for future versions?

@vchuravy
Copy link
Member

Do we know if anything is planned for future versions?

I will try to find some time to update the old PR.

@vchuravy vchuravy merged commit ce7a883 into JuliaConcurrent:master Nov 28, 2024
4 checks passed
@jpsamaroo jpsamaroo deleted the jps/core-intrinsics branch November 28, 2024 17:12
@jpsamaroo
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for getting this fixed up and merged! ❤️

@willow-ahrens
Copy link

Yes, thanks! I'm currently working on parallelizing Finch and this package has been integral to getting the peak performance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants