Re: [boost] [threadpool] version 22 with default pool

Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] version 22 with default pool
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-09 17:32:21

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edouard A." <edouard_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] version 22 with default pool

> 
>> > I also increased the size of the block to 10,000 and performance
>> improved a
>> > little bit (to ~ 0.316). If I increase to 100,000, performance go
>> back to ~
>> > 0.331.
>> 
>> Good new, isn't it?
> 
> Yes, but there is room for improvement... As long as we don't go four times
> faster than std::sort, we can do better. ;)

we are alreadt ~3.7 times better. I suspect tbb::parallel_sort  doesn't use a std::sort as base algorithm.

> The latency + bandwidth test should explain why the slice's size doesn't
> seem to affect the performances. For the test task I see something like:
> 
> for(int count = ::GetTickCount(); count != target; count  =
> ::GetTickCount());
> 
> This is a trivial spin to make sure the tasks eat up some CPU for the
> desired amount of ms.

May be you can do the test, I work on cygwin.

Vicente