[libcxx-dev] Parallel STL

Wed Sep 16 13:58:40 PDT 2020

I am looking over the OpenMP code, and it does seem to handle the nested
parallel region problem correctly.

What is the simple case that omp-parallel-for works better on? Perhaps that
can be detected and preferred in these cases? I am by no means an OpenMP
expert.

I can see that the TBB folks have done a lot of work to make it easier to
take TBB as a dependency. For us there is still some hesitancy around
embracing a large dependency like that, for a variety of reasons. I have a
number of business problems that can be drastically improved with even
basic parallelization. So while it would be great to eke out every erg of
efficiency, having something that allows our developers to trivially use
all the cores in the machine in even basic scenarios would be a huge help.
:-) And it would be nice if it were standardized, and came with our
compiler... :-)

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:54 PM Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is worth having a detailed discussion of what is meant by the OpenMP
> version.  If one maps exec::par onto omp-parallel-for, nested loops will be
> transformed into the OpenMP nested-parallel anti-pattern (or one has to
> check omp_in_parallel and generate two paths every time).  One of the
> reasons why TBB is a better backend is that it self-composes better than
> OpenMP parallel-for.  OpenMP tasking should compose better, but does not
> perform as well as omp-parallel-for in the simple cases.  (I have
> performance data comparing all of these.)
>
> If supporting nested parallel loops is a non-goal for PSTL, then my
> comments can be ignored.
>
> GCD is likely a good back-end on MacOS, especially since Apple Clang
> doesn't support OpenMP.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Christopher Nelson via libcxx-dev <
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> That's very exciting to hear! I was thinking of taking up the stalled
>> OpenMP implementation, but if you are a good way along then it may not make
>> any sense to do both.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you feel it might be a year or more before you have
>> something production ready, it might make sense to try and finish up the
>> OpenMP version. What do you think?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:14 PM Thomas Rodgers <trodgers at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > Okay, that makes sense. I can see how you might want to use Grand
>>> > Central Dispatch on macOS, and the Windows system thread pool on
>>> > Windows. I'm not really sure what that means for Linux, though. Other
>>> than maybe pthreads, which is not great.
>>>
>>> I am currently working on a new backend for GCC which is neither TBB nor
>>> OpenMP which will support both the PSTL and (presumably) C++23
>>> Executors.
>>>
>>> Kukanov, Alexey writes:
>>>
>>> > Hi Cristopher,
>>> >
>>> > One good way to contribute, I think, is to develop an OpenMP-based
>>> parallel backend. LLVM already supports OpenMP, so it resolves the
>>> dependency problem Louis mentioned. While it’s arguably not the best
>>> default engine in the long term, there is certainly some demand for it. The
>>> GCC community is also interested in it. Moreover, Mikhail and the team at
>>> Intel in collaboration with Thomas (CC’d) from GCC already developed a
>>> basic prototype: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70530, but further work is
>>> postponed. If you are interested to continue, you are more than welcome,
>>> and we will help with guidance and feedback.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > - Alexey
>>> >
>>> > From: libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of
>>> Christopher Nelson via libcxx-dev
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:43 PM
>>> > To: Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com>
>>> > Cc: Dvorskiy, Mikhail <mikhail.dvorskiy at intel.com>;
>>> > Subject: Re: [libcxx-dev] Parallel STL
>>> >
>>> > Fantastic. I will study the serial backend and see what I can do!
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 5:27 PM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com
>>> <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>> wrote:
>>> > + Mikhail, who wrote most of the PSTL
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 15, 2020, at 15:40, Christopher Nelson <nadiasvertex at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:nadiasvertex at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Okay, that makes sense. I can see how you might want to use Grand
>>> Central Dispatch on macOS, and the Windows system thread pool on Windows.
>>> I'm not really sure what that means for Linux, though. Other than maybe
>>> pthreads, which is not great.
>>> >
>>> > Is there any documentation on what is needed to create a backend? Or
>>> are there perhaps already plans in motion? I don't want to step on any
>>> toes, but I would love to have a usable pstl on macOS and Linux for the
>>> next LLVM release.
>>> > We use libc++ on Linux as well as macOS. Depending on what's involved,
>>> I might be able to contribute a backend for those two platforms.
>>> >
>>> > You're not stepping on any toes, far from that. If we have backends
>>> with satisfactory performance and we're confident about ABI stability, I
>>> don't see a reason why we wouldn't ship the PSTL as soon as we have those.
>>> One big issue to shipping it so far has been that the only backends are
>>> serial (not great to ship that), and the other one relies on an external
>>> dependency (TBB).
>>> >
>>> > Mikhail might be able to provide documentation. We should check it
>>> into the PSTL repository. I meant to write such documentation when I wrote
>>> the serial backend, but never got around to writing something that was
>>> enough to check in. You can see the minimal API needed to implement a
>>> backend here: pstl/include/pstl/internal/parallel_backend_serial.h. It's
>>> the serial backend, which tries to be as trivial as possible.
>>> >
>>> > Are you familiar with libc++ contribution? If so, contributing to PSTL
>>> works basically the same -- just send a Phabricator review and I'll review
>>> it. We can also chat on Slack in the Cpplang workspace and I can give some
>>> guidance -- look for "ldionne".
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Louis
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:50 PM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com
>>> <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Long story short, the PSTL is pretty much ready to be shipped with
>>> LLVM. I did the integration between it and libc++, and it all worked last
>>> time I checked. I think the next step would be to change whatever LLVM
>>> scripts are used to create releases to also install the PSTL, which is the
>>> part I haven't had time to look into yet.
>>> >
>>> > That being said, the PSTL will then default to using the Serial
>>> backend, which isn't very useful. We could decide to ship a different
>>> backend if we wanted, however I think what makes sense is to use a backend
>>> specific to the platform we're running on instead of adding a dependency to
>>> LLVM.
>>> >
>>> > Louis
>>> >
>>> >> On Sep 8, 2020, at 08:25, Christopher Nelson via libcxx-dev <
>>> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello friends,
>>> >>
>>> >> I have spent some time looking at the mailing archives and git logs
>>> for the parallel STL. I'm not clear what state it is in, since the
>>> oneAPI/tbb seems to be production ready and comes with the parallel STL.
>>> Also, it appears the GCC has shipped a PSTL based on the same code that
>>> clang is using.
>>> >>
>>> >> I was wondering if someone could clarify for me what state the PSTL
>>> is in, and if there is some work needed to help get it over the finish line
>>> I may be able to help. I'm very interested in using it in our production
>>> software, so I'm a motivated helper. :-)
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you for your time,
>>> >> -={C}=-
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> libcxx-dev mailing list
>>> >> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> libcxx-dev mailing list
>> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science at gmail.com
> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/attachments/20200916/af32ddb4/attachment.html>