- My thread pool class seems to be 5x faster than Qt's QThreadPool class... - 9 Updates
- [OT] USA solar eclipse Aug.21.2017 - 12 Updates
- On the road again - 4 Updates
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Aug 30 06:58AM +0200 Am 29.08.17 um 21:37 schrieb Mr Flibble: > Timing results: > QThreadPool: 1051ms > neolib::thread_pool: 222ms Interesting. How about the compiler built-in solution: #pragma omp parallel for schedule(dynamic) // of course, schedule(guided) or schedule(static) will give much better // performance, but schedule(dynamic) is more closely to what you // presumably do - start a thread for each loop iteration for (...) { ...} and compile with OpenMP (/openmp on VC++, -fopenmp on gcc)? > deriving of classes from QRunnable) it also appears to have > significantly better performance. > Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D :D As soon as you have an HTML widget and a DB abstraction layer you can try to compete.... Christian |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 01:01AM -0500 >> Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D > :D As soon as you have an HTML widget and a DB abstraction layer you can > try to compete.... If I want an HTML widget then it is a simple matter of making WebKit a dependency just like Qt does but I disagree that I need to provide a like for like of every single Qt feature to be able to compete. /Flibble |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 30 08:42AM +0200 On 29/08/17 21:37, Mr Flibble wrote: > My thread pool class seems to be 5x faster than Qt's QThreadPool class... <snip> > Not only is my thread pool class easier to use (lambdas instead of > deriving of classes from QRunnable) it also appears to have > significantly better performance. How many threads does each version have in its pool? That might make a difference. In normal use, the functions passed to the thread pool are going to be longer running (if not, they why bother with the threading?), so you are not going to see such a big difference. Still, a 5x reduction in the overhead is not insignificant. For me, it is the use of lambdas (or presumably functors or anything else that looks like a function) rather than a derived class that makes your pool a nicer and more modern solution. That's not just doing the same thing a bit faster - it is a big step up in ease of use. Well done! |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Aug 30 02:09PM +0300 On 29.08.2017 22:37, Mr Flibble wrote: > Timing results: > QThreadPool: 1051ms > neolib::thread_pool: 222ms So the task launching overhead is 10 ns with Qt and 2 ns with neolib. Not something which I would lose my sleep over, to be honest, but still interesting. Have you profiled this and found out the reasons? Is it because of avoiding a virtual call and the resulting inlining, or is it because of faster synchro primitives? |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 09:57AM -0500 > Have you profiled this and found out the reasons? Is it because of > avoiding a virtual call and the resulting inlining, or is it because of > faster synchro primitives? You failed to provide "better design" as a reason. /Flibble |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 03:30PM -0700 On 8/29/2017 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Timing results: > QThreadPool: 1051ms > neolib::thread_pool: 222ms Please try to forgive my ignorance, but at a brief glance, it seems the lambda is faster in your version vs the "undercover" virtual call to run in QT? I am also thinking of massive contention wrt the underlying memory allocator in the QT version that uses an explicit call to new... 100,000 threads is extreme! However, seems to get a "point" across. Try to create some array hybrids before creating shi%loads of linked data-structures where each node needs an explicit call to new under the contention of a loaded system! Use clean ingredients to make the damn sausages! Not a heap of ground up crap from a 1,000+ different possibly diseased cows trying to compress together in a coherent package. > deriving of classes from QRunnable) it also appears to have > significantly better performance. > Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D Sounds good to me. :^) Sorry if my comments are misrepresenting you. ;^/ |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 11:58PM +0100 On 30/08/2017 23:30, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > lambda is faster in your version vs the "undercover" virtual call to run > in QT? I am also thinking of massive contention wrt the underlying > memory allocator in the QT version that uses an explicit call to new... Nope, I also allocate a task object under the covers using new and it has a virtual function. > 100,000 threads is extreme! However, seems to get a "point" across. Try Nope, there are 100,000 tasks not a 100,000 threads; by default my thread pool creates N threads where N is number of CPU cores and I believe QThreadPool does the same. > contention of a loaded system! Use clean ingredients to make the damn > sausages! Not a heap of ground up crap from a 1,000+ different possibly > diseased cows trying to compress together in a coherent package. Sorry I failed to parse/understand any of that. >> Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D > Sounds good to me. :^) > Sorry if my comments are misrepresenting you. ;^/ Your comments are erroneous if that is what you mean. /Flibble |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 04:53PM -0700 On 8/30/2017 3:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> call to new... > Nope, I also allocate a task object under the covers using new and it > has a virtual function. Are these calls to raw new? No special override to a custom allocator? > Nope, there are 100,000 tasks not a 100,000 threads; by default my > thread pool creates N threads where N is number of CPU cores and I > believe QThreadPool does the same. 100,000 async individual state-machines multiplexed by N threads is workable, and can be scaleable. >> damn sausages! Not a heap of ground up crap from a 1,000+ different >> possibly diseased cows trying to compress together in a coherent package. > Sorry I failed to parse/understand any of that. Try to create a nice sized single allocation of properly aligned and padded memory before any threads and/or tasks are created. This can help reduce some calls to new during a tasks lifetime. The alignment and padding can help get rid of false sharing. >> Sounds good to me. :^) >> Sorry if my comments are misrepresenting you. ;^/ > Your comments are erroneous if that is what you mean. Did I do any better in this message, or worse? Trying to understand why you got your speed up. Better use of data-structures wrt alignment, layout and logic? |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 05:14PM -0700 On 8/30/2017 4:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > padded memory before any threads and/or tasks are created. This can help > reduce some calls to new during a tasks lifetime. The alignment and > padding can help get rid of false sharing. Should explicitly point out that the pre-thread/task allocation would be used for task structures themselves and for allocation needs during their lifetime. When this pre-allocated pool runs out, then another call to new can be performed to allocate another large chunk of memory. We amortize calls to new. |
| Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>: Aug 29 08:54PM -0400 Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry. No God needed in this "hypothesis". -- Debian Hint #20: Want to keep track of what version of a package you have installed (especially useful for those running hybrid stable / testing / unstable systems)? Check out apt-show-versions. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 29 06:29PM -0700 On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 9:06:13 PM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry. > No God needed in this "hypothesis". A printed page follows the rules of physics and chemistry for how the ink works on the page, but it is in the arrangement of the data/ information that makes it non-spontaneous, non-chemical, non-natural, and artificially created. It is the same with the information in DNA, except the information contained in DNA is like the most complex math formulas you've ever seen integrated over and over and over again to provide for use in a physical medium, creating proteins which are able to read itself, replicate itself, and all the while employing that complex inter- relational system of data. There is an alphabet that is arranged into a code. The code has error checking, redundancy, and for various applications a sequence of content is trimmed for use in this location, while trimmed differently for use in another, while used in full in a third, and it continues out for up to 12 separate uses the genetic researchers have been able to identify so far. ----- DNA is a chemical, and its interaction with other things are also all chemical. However, it is the way it has been engineered, the information at work, which makes it non-chemical. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>: Aug 30 04:13AM -0400 On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:22:45 +0100 > > of said group or it's agenda, i.e., annoyed by Rick's numerous > > religious rants. > You are incredibly immature. Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot, who fails to take personal responsibility to filter posts, who has no integrity because he blames others for his life problems, who wishes to enforce his own immature, non-standard, group thought, entirely made-up Usenet etiquette rules upon everyone else, who doesn't see things his way, like a little cry-baby. Are you a little cry-baby? Oh, yes, you are. > You are not a victim: Yes, I was, by definition. I had every right to respond in a thread clearly marked OT without being attacked by anyone. How many times do I have to say this before you comprehend it as the truth? Rejection shows your wrongheaded confirmation bias, but does nothing to correct your erroneous beliefs. > you were repeatedly responding to Rick's off topic posts Yes, and those posts which were marked off-topic per Usenet etiquette. So, what exactly justifies you having the right to complain about something when it followed standardized Usenet etiquette? (rhetorical) > knowing that it would encourage him to post more. That's a lie. He doesn't respond to every post. And, I can't control whether he posts or not, just as I can't control your anger issues. I can help him think about what he says instead of just repeating religious propaganda, if he wants to think about the issues. > You were not as your claim trying to change his posting habits, On what grounds can you claim that you know what I was doing? I told you what I was doing and did, yet you claim I was doing something else entirely. Are you an idiot? > which would clearly be hopeless. That is a matter of opinion. Your tactic with Rick is clearly not working. It's clear to me that your and c.l.c./c.l.c++'s group thought "policy" of repeatedly ignoring his posts is doing absolutely nothing to stop them. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results," which is attributed to Albert Einstein. Imagine that, Albert Einstein apparently agrees with me. Your anger at me is only an attempt to victimize others who needn't be, which is wrong as you don't have that right. > Instead you said that you were posting your crap Crap? That's entirely false. No crap was posted by me. My arguments with Rick were 100% serious. It's only "crap" because you refuse to accept standard Usenet etiquette, because you dislike Rick's posts. > Instead you said that you were posting [...] to make Rick > "actually /THINK/ deeply about some of these things he says, not > just accept them because it's part of his Faith". With the blatantly false "crap" insult excised, that's true. If he did, might realize it's not worth posting to people uninterested in his message, or he may simply burn out from arguing. > The only part of your posting that is right is that "two wrongs do > not make a right". False. > Responding to off topic posts with off topic posts > does not make off topic posting OK. Off-topic posting is perfectly acceptable per Usenet etiquette standards as long as it is clearly marked as such, as it was in this case. RTFM. It's clear to me that you never have read the Usenet etiquette FAQ. > Stop it (and your attempts at self-justification). You need to stop spreading your lies. Repeating them doesn't make them true. You are completely wrong to criticize off-topic posts clearly marked as such. If you want to criticize Rick's off-topic posts not marked as such, that's fair game, of which there are many. The solution, like everything else here stated previously, is to filter out posts by Rick or marked OT. That's called personal responsibility. It would also demonstrate integrity. If you had any, you wouldn't be blaming others for your self-created misery and problems. You'd filter. Rod Pemberton -- Isn't anti-hate just hate by another name? Isn't anti-protesting just protesting by another name? Peace is a choice that both sides rejected. |
| Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>: Aug 30 05:16AM -0400 Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > information that makes it non-spontaneous, non-chemical, non-natural, > and artificially created. > It is the same with the information in DNA, ... Nope. > DNA is a chemical, and its interaction with other things are also > all chemical. However, it is the way it has been engineered, the > information at work, which makes it non-chemical. DNA is not engineered, though lately we have figured out techniques to "engineer" it to some extent. What "Nature" does easily, according to the "laws" of physics, we have to work hard at. Thus arises the inability of some people to believe that there is no God-engineer needed to create the complex world we see. Oh, and buh bye. -- There's small choice in rotten apples. -- William Shakespeare, "The Taming of the Shrew" |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 06:02AM -0400 On 8/30/2017 5:16 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> and artificially created. >> It is the same with the information in DNA, ... > Nope. Information does not arise from purely mechanical processes. If you put a paper substrate into a pool of ink, it would never be able to arrange the ink molecules in a way so as to produce the writing War and Peace, and DNA is infinitely more complex than would be the arrangement of letters into a document like War and Peace. The research is out there regarding how much information and how many information systems are at work in DNA, Chris. The twelve dimensions I mentioned state that a single piece of DNA is used in twelve separate functions differently, and not just differently, but differently in a very specific way which is also triggered by additional information contained within the DNA. If you want to seek the truth, then go and research it for yourself. If you get a handle on what's taking place inside of DNA ... I don't believe a person could ever be the same again. It's simply one of those fundamental things you come to realize and you look at it and you just stand back in awe and say, "Hold on. Wait a minute. What's going on here?" because you realize it could not just happen. It was purposefully designed, and is of such complexity that it's totally mind boggling. ----- There is an active enemy at work in this world attempting to keep you from coming to the knowledge of God, and from seeking the truth. But if you will resolve within yourself to know the truth, God Himself will make sure you find it. God is real and created all things a few thousand years ago, so the enemy takes God out of the equation and ascribes the infinitely complex processes of God's genius to natural processes over millions of years, something we can't possible prove or disprove, so as to give us seeds of doubt that make us wonder if it's really true or not. All the while, God is teaching us what is true, but because of sin, only those who seek the truth will find it. The rest will be fooled by the enemy. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Aug 30 04:00AM -0700 On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 04:06:13 UTC+3, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry. > No God needed in this "hypothesis". What Rick posted was a link to computer animation (that follows rules of its animator, not chemistry). His posts always contain such logical errors ("atheist scientist" of age 16) and misreports ("real news" from prank news sites). If to reply then he posts more of such things. May be he really looks at computer animations and thinks that awww God made it! Then it is not nice to laugh at him. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 08:17AM -0400 On 8/30/2017 7:00 AM, Öö Tiib wrote: > prank news sites). If to reply then he posts more of such things. May > be he really looks at computer animations and thinks that awww God > made it! Then it is not nice to laugh at him. The animation was posted from a Google TEDTalk by a leading expert in the field of genetics research. His animation is one of several produced by the team of researchers who began studying DNA in the 2000s, only to publish a paper in the mid-2010s which stated that they've found that 80% of the information in DNA is used in bodily processes. Researchers involved in that project have come forward since then and said it's likely to be 100%, but they cannot solidly verify the last 20%, so they used conservative estimates. God is revealing Himself to us through all things, Öö Tiib. It is not God's design or creation BECAUSE Rick says so, but because it is that way, and the evidence we find continually is pointing to it. Here's how the fossil record of change over time we see really works: "One Race, One Blood" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m1s And here's a talk describing the complexity of genetics: "The Wonder of DNA" -- Dr. Purdom, Genetics Researcher www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ACCIu3jPrc And here's more information by Drew Berry: "Animations of Unseeable Biology" at TED Talk Sydney https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfB8vQokr0Q At TED Talk CalTech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC1MZ-xAu4 ----- This information couples with the balanced knife edge set of constants and equations which hold our universe together, which scientists have said seems unreasonably balanced to support life, meaning it doesn't make sense for the values to be what they are, unless they were purposefully tweaked to support life. But more fundamentally: (1) Do you have sin? (2) Do you want to be judged by God for that sin? (3) Jesus gives you a way out by asking forgiveness. (4) He can give you eternal life today, and restore to you a future in the paradise of God. It is His great pleasure to give man this, but He will not force Himself on anyone. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 08:26AM -0400 On 8/30/2017 8:17 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > in the field of genetics research. His animation is one of several > produced by the team of researchers who began studying DNA in the > 2000s, The research team he works with is here: https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/genomics https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/epigenetics https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/cell-signalling They perform research in a wide range of genetics fields, including genomics, epigenetics (characteristics which span lifetimes, and even go across generations -- such as a near starvation period in history in a particular region, and nearly all offspring born during that time had far greater cardiovascular health than others), cell signaling which is a type of Internet within our cells for cell-to-cell communication, along with chemical markers, and the underlying proteins which produce these things. > (4) He can give you eternal life today, and restore to you > a future in the paradise of God. It is His great pleasure > to give man this, but He will not force Himself on anyone. These are not idle scientists. And his work is the presentation end of that full body of research. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 04:46PM +0100 On 30/08/2017 09:13, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> religious rants. >> You are incredibly immature. > Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot, who fails to take Yes you are a fucking child mate. Rick doesn't always mark his god bothering rants as off topic so your so called argument is moot. /Flibble |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Aug 30 04:22PM In article <jqmdnVLJs7N7QDvEnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: ... >Yes you are a fucking child mate. Rick doesn't always mark his god >bothering rants as off topic so your so called argument is moot. Worrying about whether or not the '[OT]' header is provided is nonsene. It's the proverbial "Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" sort of thing. The fact is that everything Rick posts is OT, so if you want to screen out OT, just killfile him and be done with it. I'm saying that even when Rick posts stuff that, superficially, seems to be "on topic", it's still and always is and always will be, the same old garbage. It's just a thin veneer of topicality wrapped around it, but it's the same old crap. So, just make a decision. Either killfile him or selectfile him (I do the later, because I find his stuff so darn amusing - even though even I can't actually read his most recent crap - he really does seem to be suffering some sort of chemical change in the brain as of late) - and be done with it. In either case, stop whining about it! -- Rich people pay Fox people to convince middle class people to blame poor people. (John Fugelsang) |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 03:57PM -0700 On 8/30/2017 1:13 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> religious rants. >> You are incredibly immature. > Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot Afaict, Chris Vine is not an idiot. [...the snip, sorry...] |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 04:16PM -0700 On 8/28/2017 6:50 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Why can't some people stop doing the thing they don't want to do? > They can't stop taking drugs. They can't stop having an affair > with so-and-so. They can't stop drinking alcohol. Wine/alcohol abuse, the raw power of certain positions, and other dogmatic "unrelated" lines of thinking can have the power to create bad outcomes in the damn babbling cauldron of an individuals thinking processes: Ready to be stewed together, into a most interesting amalgam of sin and/or good, according to the observing teaching party's personal ideas of good and bad. Run on sentence, demarcation! ;^) > They can't stop abusing their children. Damn it Man! Why the heck not! This pisses me off right here Rick. Makes me want to think of the following clip from South Park: https://youtu.be/pwIMwvDvmaY Please answer me in a technical sense that gives said answer as an output in a standard C program. Make it use a couple of variables as well... You can create a tiny little AI using your knowledge. The generated output of the running agents can be ruled by the teacher, that coherently answers yes, no and maybe. The program has a programmed sense of bad, or burning if it gets the answer wrong! Its sensors are pulsing in the scheme of things. Can we truly simulate good or bad without a teacher or, prior programming? ;^o |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Aug 30 09:49AM -0700 "If you are indeed asking the way to Zion with your face thitherward, I bid you good speed. Behold an open door is set before you, which none can shut. Yet prepare to endure hardship, for the way lies through many tribulations." John Newton, Preface http://www.desiringGod.org/books/the-pilgrim-s-progress It hasn't been easy, but G-d has been faithful through the first 18 years of Ebenezer Enterprises. Stepping into the 19th year, I want to ask for your ideas on how to improve the software and website. https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards Thanks in advance. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 06:05PM +0100 > to improve the software and website. > https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards > Thanks in advance. Brian, you are not trying very hard to disguise the fact that your posts are little more than proselytization just like Rick's. God bothering in any form is unwanted here. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 01:25PM -0400 On 8/30/2017 1:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > God bothering in any form is unwanted here. What you say is true only for those who are perishing. For those who have been and will be redeemed, God's presence in one's life is as the air or water or food ... absolutely essential. God teaches us to have Him out in front of us so we are not mis- guided into the enemy's traps and pitfalls. And even then, here in this fallen world, with a real, conscious, concerted effort in serving God, yet still do we make mistakes because the enemy we face is that clever, crafty, and evil. God upholds us even in our failings, and He calls us to have Him out front in our lives, which is why Christians move forward in the things we do with regard to Him. God first. Other things second. It is the natural way of the entire universe ... everywhere except here on fallen-in-sin Earth due to fallen-in-sin man's folly. But even this Earth is passing away and won't be here much longer, but God will remain forever, as will all those who put their faith and trust in His Son, Jesus, given to us as a propitiation for our sin. He restores us to Himself, pulls us out of this world and into His domain in Heaven forever. No more pain. No more tears. No more hate. No more death. It is "Heaven" in the true sense of the word. It is God's domain, and He calls each of us to it. All we have to do is acknowledge the truth: We are a sinner, we need forgiveness, and Jesus came here for that purpose to forgive us so that we might have a way out of that which we could not make a way out of on our own. God is glorious. He is all rightness, all truth, all power, all purpose. He deserves to be first in all things. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Aug 30 10:34AM -0700 On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > Brian, you are not trying very hard to disguise the fact that your posts > are little more than proselytization just like Rick's. > God bothering in any form is unwanted here. Leigh, a kind word here would be to say congratulations on this milestone and best wishes in the years ahead. Brian |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment