We have to be smart , please read again...

[Ramine]

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
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.

[Ramine]

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.