Re: Whats' the proper senario of par-map? (Was Re: bug#13188: par-map causes VM stack overflow)

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
>>
>>> It only makes sense to use 'par-map' when the procedure is fairly
>>> expensive to compute.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> There is inevitably a lot of overhead in creating and joining the
>>> threads.
>>
>> We use a thread pool, so there’s no such cost.
>
> Sorry, I was using the term 'threads' not in the sense of OS-level
> threads, but in a more general sense.  I should have been more clear.
>
> What I meant is that from the user's perspective, threads are being
> created and joined, and even if you build those using a pool of OS-level
> threads, this inevitably involves thread synchronization, which is very
> expensive on modern architectures.  So I maintain that there _is_ such a
> cost, and it can't be avoided.

Ah yes, OK.

> The point I was really trying to make here, in the simplest possible
> terms, is that it will *never* make sense to replace all uses of 'map'
> with 'par-map' wherever it is safe to do so.

Indeed!

Ludo’.