Move function parallelism to pass and pass runner#564
Merged
Conversation
…efficient parallel execution
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
By doing it at the pass/pass runner level, we can be smarter about things. Previously we ran each pass, in parallel, and waited for it to finish entirely before moving to the next. With this PR we run all the passes we can on a single function. This avoids the join after each pass, and also is good for locality.
This speeds up optimization by a few %. Also feels like a cleaner API, to let traversals worry just about traversing, and the pass runner deals with running multiple passes in a parallel and efficient manner.