Closed meggart closed 8 months ago
I forgot to mention that this will break the ArType
argument for InDims
. Wrapping the array in the inner function would only be possible with considerable overhead (ok, it might depend), so if you merge as it is, this would be breaking and we should update the docs for InDims
Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
src/DAT/registration.jl | 1 | 75.0% | ||
src/DAT/DAT.jl | 22 | 72.57% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 23 | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 5476969869: | -1.4% |
Covered Lines: | 953 |
Relevant Lines: | 1690 |
Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
src/DAT/registration.jl | 1 | 75.0% | ||
src/DAT/DAT.jl | 22 | 68.85% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 23 | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 5476969869: | -1.4% |
Covered Lines: | 953 |
Relevant Lines: | 1690 |
Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
src/DAT/registration.jl | 1 | 75.0% | ||
src/DAT/DAT.jl | 22 | 68.85% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 23 | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 5476969869: | -1.4% |
Covered Lines: | 953 |
Relevant Lines: | 1690 |
This speeds up my c-scale runs by roughly a factor of two but it is still much slower as the previous wrong use of threading. I suspect, that I could also play around again a bit on the number of workers and number of threads, but for now this is fine and I hope to be able to run most of europe in the next weeks.
I think it is ok to not give the artype into the inner function, because this was mainly used for the axes values and they can be provided as extra cubes anyways. I should be updating the docs for the Axes as cube usage
Just a question, did you actually remove the :static
from the threaded loop?
@felixcremer as discussed this branch would use views instead of pre-allocated buffer arrays and can therefore be used in the multithreaded loop without
:static
. Could you test if this would speed up your c-scale runs?