|Bill Allombert on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:55:31 +0100|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: Stack size bugs and parisizemax|
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:54:08PM +0100, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2015-01-20 21:32, Bill Allombert wrote: > >The purpose of parisizemax was to allow to have a nearly unlimited stack > >(limited only by the available hardware) without increasing the actual > >memory usage (in the sense that the final stack size will be close to the > >minimum stack size for which the computation would have succeed, up to a factor > >of two). > I don't think that parisizemax should behave like that. If an > algorithm can work significantly faster by using a larger stack size > than the minimum, it should do that. I think we all agree on that, but this is no contradictory with the above: performing more GC should still be OK if it does not slow down the computation much. We also agree that garbage collection in second-level loops is problematic when doing linear algebra (because garbage collection is very slow then). Do you think supporting what you call 'desesparation mode' to be valuable ? So far Karim and I have been less than convinced. Cheers, Bill.