Ramine
2/15/2015 1:21:00 AM
On 2/13/2015 7:43 PM, Ramine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have to be smart , please read what's follow...
>
> I have said before that my parallel heapsort is more cache efficient
> it is why it scales almost perfectly on an 8 cores machine, but
> i think i have made a mistake , cause i have just looked carefully at
> my parallel heapsort and what i have noticed that it contains two
> string's compares, but my parallel quicksort contains one string compare
> on it's partition function, so from the Amdahl's equation since the
I mean: "Its" partition function, not it's partition function.
> string's compare is more expensive , the parallel heapsort will scale
> almost perfectly on 8 cores machines, but i don't think it will scale on
> more than 8 cores machines... it's the Amdahl's equation that says so,
> and i think all my parallel algorithms have the same cache efficiency..
> so by nature parallel sort algorithms such us parallel mergesort and
> parallel quicksort and parallel heapsort have a scalability limit at 8X
> or so, and they don't scale at more than 8X with more and more cores
> than 8 cores, so the solution is to implement a NUMA-aware parallel sort
> algorithm to make it scale on more and more NUMA nodes...
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>