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

Make scheduler options structs #22

Closed
carstenbauer opened this issue Feb 1, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #45
Closed

Make scheduler options structs #22

carstenbauer opened this issue Feb 1, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #45
Assignees

Comments

@carstenbauer
Copy link
Member

  • For schedule=:static the reasonable default is nchunks=nthreads().
  • For schedule=:dynamic the reasonable default is nchunks=x*nthreads(), where x is a small factor (maybe 2 or 3).
    • With the current default (nchunks=nthreads()) we have no load balancing and we're no better than @threads :dynamic.
  • I haven't tested / thought about schedule=:greedy yet.
@carstenbauer carstenbauer added question Further information is requested breaking labels Feb 1, 2024
@carstenbauer
Copy link
Member Author

carstenbauer commented Feb 1, 2024

@MasonProtter
Copy link
Member

MasonProtter commented Feb 2, 2024

Yeah, I was thinking that with all of these different options and the way they depend on eachother, I'd want to make the schedule a struct. i.e. something like

Base.@kwdef struct GreedyScheduler
    nchunks::Int = nthreads()
    split::Symbol=:batch
end

@carstenbauer
Copy link
Member Author

Might make sense, yes.

@carstenbauer carstenbauer changed the title Choose different nchunks defaults for different schedulers? Choose different nchunks defaults for different schedulers Feb 2, 2024
@carstenbauer carstenbauer added priority and removed question Further information is requested labels Feb 2, 2024
@carstenbauer carstenbauer changed the title Choose different nchunks defaults for different schedulers Make scheduler options structs Feb 6, 2024
@carstenbauer carstenbauer self-assigned this Feb 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants