Refactor IOSimPOR

[coot]

A long list of self contained patches. See CHANGELOG.md for a short description of all the changes.

[coot]

With unsafeInterleaveST

conjoinParST :: TestableNoCatch prop => [ST s prop] -> ST s Property
conjoinParST sts = do
    ps <- sequence (unsafeInterleaveST <$> sts)
    return $ conjoinPar ps

N	Total	Elapsed	MUT	MUT Elapsed
1	74.625s	74.520s	59.564s	59.423s
2	93.936s	58.870s	71.665s	44.233s
3	103.538s	55.560s	78.795s	42.647s
4	111.185s	54.310s	83.378s	41.874s
5	113.673s	53.420s	84.926s	41.594s
6	119.478s	53.920s	88.528s	42.048s
7	124.710s	54.120s	92.008s	42.428s
8	119.583s	51.430s	88.580s	40.912s
9	129.239s	53.010s	94.851s	42.084s
10	126.762s	52.070s	93.471s	41.733s
11	130.695s	52.080s	95.989s	41.832s
12	136.149s	52.570s	99.176s	42.127s
--	----------	---------	----------	-------------
24	177.372s	58.281s	123.908s	46.076s

Note: on a machine ith 12 physical cores, 24 CPU threads.

Without unsafeInterleaveST

conjoinParST :: TestableNoCatch prop => [ST s prop] -> ST s Property
conjoinParST sts = do
    ps <- sequence sts
    return $ conjoinPar ps

N	Total	Elapsed	MUT	MUT Elapsed
1	84.907s	84.790s	62.006s	61.850s
2	101.086s	89.570s	69.277s	69.025s
3	104.942s	88.220s	70.331s	69.479s
4	106.666s	86.870s	70.994s	69.499s
5
6	108.294s	85.110s	72.338s	69.597s
7
8
9
10	121.869s	86.000s	75.760s	70.053s
11
12	129.112s	86.470s	77.958s	70.382s

[dcoutts]

Any idea why the with/without unsafeInterleaveST is 10s different @ -N1? 74 vs 84s @ -N1

[coot]

No, it's a bit surprising. When I run it now I get similar results. Different test case, and previously I was running with profiling, this time without. Still there's a 10% difference.

Par

N	Total	Elapsed
1	7.529	7.530
6	11.648	5.610
12	13.709	5.550

Seq

N	Total	Elapsed
1	8.177	8.170
6	11.513	8.700
12	12.646	8.400

[coot]

@bolt12 I addressed your review. I accepted most of your comments, the one that I challenged I left opened.