Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
menu search
person
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

I've been calling this in OpenMP

#pragma omp parallel for num_threads(totalThreads)
for(unsigned i=0; i<totalThreads; i++)
{
workOnTheseEdges(startIndex[i], endIndex[i]);
}

And this in C++11 std::threads (I believe those are just pthreads)

vector<thread> threads;
for(unsigned i=0; i<totalThreads; i++)
{
threads.push_back(thread(workOnTheseEdges,startIndex[i], endIndex[i])); 
}
for (auto& thread : threads)
{
 thread.join();
}

But, the OpenMP implementation is 2x the speed--Faster! I would have expected C++11 threads to be faster, as they are more low-level. Note: The code above is being called not just once, but probably 10,000 times in a loop, so maybe that has something to do with it?

Edit: for clarification, in practice, I either use the OpenMP or the C++11 version--not both. When I am using the OpenMP code, it takes 45 seconds and when I am using the the C++11, it takes 100 seconds.

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
303 views
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Answer

Where does totalThreads come from in your OpenMP version? I bet it's not startIndex.size().

The OpenMP version queues the requests onto totalThreads worker threads. It looks like the C++11 version creates, startIndex.size() threads, which involves a ridiculous amount of overhead if that's a big number.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
...