Closed ronawho closed 5 years ago
cc @npadmana
Easiest to review side-by-side ignoring whitespace. If you have changes you're working on, feel free to make me rebase.
This looks good to me -- I had a few questions/thoughts in the review.
I'm doing some large scale hacking of old, dead code, we can figure out the merge as soon as I'm done.
One question -- I'm actually fine with the {x,y}Plan{Sm,Lg}
rewrite. We could certainly hide that behind a BatchedFFTWPlan
wrapper, but it feels unnecessary here.
I'm doing some large scale hacking of old, dead code, we can figure out the merge as soon as I'm done.
Cool!
One question -- I'm actually fine with the {x,y}Plan{Sm,Lg} rewrite. We could certainly hide that behind a BatchedFFTWPlan wrapper, but it feels unnecessary here.
I have a different branch that does that, but I didn't want to jam it into this PR. I was going to open up a separate PR to discuss after this went in. https://github.com/npadmana/DistributedFFT/commit/8da6959610269be1da1e157c9754892bee0cfdce if you want to take a look before that.
Some of these might be style preference, and some of them are comments that helped me understand the batching code better. I have no problem sticking with your preferred style if there is something you don't like here. I did not see any noticeable performance difference for the
elegant=false
code before and after these changes.Here are the changes I made roughly in the order they appear:
with (ref ....)
for planscoforall loc in Locales do on loc
a single line to lessen indentationy0
toySrc.first
, it's cheap to docopy
to do a memcpy when both are local, but I didn't want to figure out the c_ptr stuff and this shouldn't have any noticeable overhead)